Journal For The Evangelical Study of The Old Testament

[JESOT 1.
1 (2012): 124]
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1
_________________________________________
JOURNAL FOR THE EVANGELICAL

STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings:

The Resolution of Davidic Blessing and
Mosaic Curse / 3
BY NATHAN LOVELL
The Soteriological Development of the
Arm of the Lord Motif / 29
BY MATHEW AKERS
Making Sense of Melchizedek (Gen 14:1820) /
BY SILVIU TATU
David, The Ruler of the Sons of the Covenant
() : The Expansion of
Psalm 151 in 11QPsa / 77
BY ANDREW WITT
Book Reviews
Book Review Index
99
/
151
49
Journal for the Evangelical Study

of the Old Testament
JESOT is published bi-annually online at www.jesot.org and in print

by Wipf and Stock Publishers.
199 West 8th Avenue, Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401, USA
ISSN 2169-0685
2014 by Wipf and Stock Publishers

JESOT is an international, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the
academic and evangelical study of the Old Testament. The journal seeks
to publish current academic research in the areas of ancient Near Eastern
backgrounds, Dead Sea Scrolls, Rabbinics, Linguistics, Septuagint,
Research Methodology, Literary Analysis, Exegesis, Text Criticism, and
Theology as they pertain only to the Old Testament. The journal seeks to
provide a venue for high-level scholarship on the Old Testament from an
evangelical standpoint. The journal is not affiliated with any particular
academic institution, and with an international editorial board, online
format, and multi-language submissions, JESOT seeks to cultivate Old
Testament scholarship in the evangelical global community.
JESOT is indexed in Old Testament Abstracts and Christian Periodical
Index
Journal for the Evangelical Study

of the Old Testament
Executive Editor
STEPHEN J. ANDREWS
(Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, USA)
Journal correspondence and manuscript

submissions should be directed to
editor@jesot.org. Instructions for authors can
be found at www.jesot.org.
Managing Editor
WILLIAM R. OSBORNE
(College of the Ozarks, USA)
Books for review and review correspondence

should be directed to Russell Meek at
rmeek@jesot.org.
Associate Editor
RUSSELL L. MEEK
(Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, USA)
All ordering and subscription inquiries

should be sent to Orders@wipfandstock.com.
Editorial Board
T. DESMOND ALEXANDER (Union
Theological College, Queens
University, Ireland)
WALTER C. KAISER JR. (GordonConwell Theological Seminary, USA)
GEORGE ATHAS (Moore Theological

College, Australia)
JENS BRUUN KOFOED (Copenhagen

Lutheran School of Theology,
Denmark)
ELLIS R. BROTZMAN (Emeritus, Tyndale

Theological Seminary, The
Netherlands)
KENNETH A. MATHEWS (Beeson

Divinty School, Samford University,
USA)
HLNE DALLAIRE (Denver Seminary,

USA)
STEVEN M. ORTIZ (Southwestern

Baptist Theological Seminary, USA)
JOHN F. EVANS (Nairobi Evangelical

Graduate School of Theology, Kenya)
CRISTIAN RATA (Torch Trinity

Graduate University, South Korea)
JOHN HOBBINS (University of

Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA)
MATHIEU RICHELLE (Facult Libre de

Thologie vanglique, France)
JAMES K. HOFFMEIER (Trinity

Evangelical Divinity School, USA)
DAVID T. TSUMURA (Japan Bible

Seminary, Japan)
JERRY HWANG (Singapore Bible

College, Singapore)
BARRY G. WEBB (Emeritus, Moore

Theological College, Australia
[JESOT 3.1 (2014): 327]
The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings:

The Resolution of Davidic Blessing and Mosaic Curse
NATHAN LOVELL
North-West University and George Whitefield College, South Africa
nlovell@gwc.ac.za
The issue of hope in the book of Kings has long been a focal point of
debate. This paper approaches the question from the standpoint of the
final form of the book, rather than attempting to discern the voice of the
Deuteronomist(s) within the text. I argue that the message of hope is
exposed by a central theological tension within the book: that Yahweh
has promised both blessing to David and curse for Mosaic breach. I
conclude that in the resolution of this tension the book encourages
hope in its exilic readership, but precludes a return to the monarchy as
it was formerly. Rather, the purpose of Kings as it now stands is to
reshape exilic hope towards a different type of kingdom, and to
demonstrate to the exiles the new shape that this kingdom will take
through the prophetic ministry amongst the powerless to gather a
remnant. Messianic and nationalistic hope in Kings is shaped by the
exile, which represents a new beginning for Yahwehs people.
KEYWORDS: 12 Kings, Davidic promise, Mosaic covenant,

Messianic hope, Remnant, Exile, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah,
Elijah, Elisha, Jehoiachin
In this paper I revisit the question of what hope for restoration the book
of Kings offers its exilic readership.1 For over half a century this question
has been central to an analysis of the message of Kings, and answers
have ranged across a spectrum: from hope for complete restoration of the
Davidic monarchy, to no hope whatsoever.2 The question was first posed
1. I am assuming an exilic composition of Kings, which is implied by the account of
Jehoiachins release in 561 B.C. (2 Kgs 25:2730).
2. I outline some of the positions here, but see Michael Avioz, The Book of Kings in
Recent Research (Part 1), Currents 4 (2005): 1820.
Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1
by Martin Noth in 1957 in the context of his larger proposal for a

Deuteronomistic History.3 He argued that the Deuteronomist offered no
hope of restoration at all, but rather that the purpose of Kings was to
explain the exile as the outworking of the breach of the Mosaic covenant
in Israels history. Gerhard Von Rad, on the other hand, proposed that
Jehoiachins release from Babylonian prison (2 Kgs 25:2730) offered
hope for a full restoration of the Davidic monarchy because it could be
read in the light of the Davidic promise (2 Sam 7:117).4 Both answers
have found adherents since that time, as well as a range positioned
between these two poles.5 The difficulty of the question has driven some
to propose that no answer is even possible, that rather the book is best
accounted for by a series of Deuteronomistic editors, each with their own
agenda for the material.6
3. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (2nd ed.; trans. D. J. A. Clines; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1981), 9799.
4. Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York:
Harper & Row, 1962), 34143.
5. Most recently, Janzen has argued that it is a message of hope and warning for
Jehoiachin. See David Janzen, The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah: A Synchronic
Reading of the Final Chapters of Kings, JSOT 37 (2013): 35152 and idem, An
Ambiguous Ending: Dynastic Punishment in Kings and the Fate of the Davidides in 2
Kings 25.2730, JSOT 33 (2008): 57. Provan is positive about the message of the
book, finding in it hope for a Davidic messiah like Solomon, Hezekiah, or Josiah. See
Iain W. Provan, 1 & 2 Kings (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 8793 and idem,
The Messiah in the Book of Kings, in The Lords Anointed: Interpretation of Old
Testament Messianic Texts (ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess and Gordon J.
Wenham; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 7681. Hobbs, likewise, is positive about
the possibility of restoration. See Thomas R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (Waco, TX: Word, 1985),
26869. Wolff is more reserved in his assessment, believing that Noth had the better of
the argument, but that he overlooked the possibility of repentance. He proposed that
Kings was compiled as an encouragement to the exiles to turn to Yahweh in hope of
restoration. See Hans W. Wolff, The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,
in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (2nd ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 93
97. The repentance position has also been defended by Donald F. Murray, Of All the
Years the Hopesor Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:2730), JBL 120
(2001): 26365 and Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew
Thought of the Sixth Century BC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1968), 7981.
Others see various formulations of qualified hope. McConville, for example, sees a
reason for hope in the book, but not hope for a return to the former status quo. See J.
Gordon McConville, Narrative and Meaning in the Books of Kings, Bib 70 (1989):
48. Galil argues for reading the Deuteronomistic history as continuing into Jeremiah
and projects hope forward through that book. See Gershon Galil, The Message of the
Book of Kings in Relation to Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, BibSac (2001): 41314.
6. Frank Moore Cross championed this position with what has now become a classical
double-redaction explanation (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History
LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings
The reason that a definitive answer has proved so elusive is

because tension arises in the narrative between two promises of Yahweh.
On the one hand, Yahweh has promised blessings to Israel (later Judah)
because of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:117). But on the other,
Yahweh has promised curses through Moses for covenant breach (e.g.,
Deut 27:926; 28:1568). If history had proceeded along a different line
there would be no tension. The covenant at Horeb promised blessings for
obedience which would align with the blessing promised to David (e.g.,
Deut 28:114). This hope is revealed from the outset as futile because
there is no one who does not sin (1 Kgs 8:46). As the narrative
progresses it becomes inevitable that the curse of the Mosaic covenant
will be enacted in both kingdoms. What then of the promise to David?
The thesis of this paper is that this tension is intentionally
exploited to create a message of hope for the exilic readers of Kings.7
Some definitions will be necessary to begin. The book of Kings shares
______________________________________________________
of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 27478,
28789). The first redaction supported Josiahs reforms and had a positive assessment
of the Israelite monarchy, but was later modified by a second Deuteronomist explaining
the exile. Although Crosss proposal of multiple redactions of the material has been
broadly accepted (Avioz, The Book of Kings, 1416), his scepticism about the
coherence of Kings as the book now stands has not. Much recent scholarship agrees
that the final form of Kings presents a more or less coherent message, whatever its
literary history. See, e.g., Jon D. Levenson, The Last Four Verses in Kings, JBL 103
(1984): 35456; Terence E. Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1999), 810; Walter A. Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys, 2000), 15; and Jerome T. Walsh and David W. Cotter, 1 Kings (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical, 1996), xii. All these find coherence in the message of the book, despite
their disparate approaches. Janzen critiques the whole approach in Janzen, The Sins of
Josiah and Hezekiah, 35155.
7. This demands that the narrative be considered a cohesive whole, and this will be a
feature of my approach, rather than explaining the tension as the result of a series of
editions. The history of the debate has often focussed on the message of the
Deuteronomist, rather than the book itself, and so the discussion has usually revolved
around a small number of key texts considered Deuteronomistic. Such texts include
Solomons prayer of dedication (1 Kgs 8:2261), Jeroboam and Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12
13), the release of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:2730), and the Deuteronomistic
endorsement of Josiah (2 Kgs 2223). See, e.g., McConville, Narrative and Meaning,
3134, and J. Gordon McConville, 1 Kings VIII 4653 and the Deuteronomic Hope,
VT 42 (1992): 6771. There are, however, a number of non-Deuteronomistic texts that
are usually omitted from consideration, but that comprise large sections of the book,
especially: the Elijah/Elisha narratives (1 Kgs 1719, 2 Kgs 313), some of the
Solomon narratives (1 Kgs 34), material from Ahab, Jezebel, and Jehu (2 Kgs 910),
as well as the Isaianic material in the Hezekiah narrative (2 Kgs 18:1320:21). See
Susanne Otto, The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic
History, JSOT 27 (2003): 48790. This essay outlines a reading of Kings that relates
the broader narrative to its central theological tension.
with Old Testament theology a conception of a series of covenants that

govern Israels history, initiated by Yahweh with Abraham (Gen 12:13;
15:121; 17:114), then with Israel through Moses (Ex 2035, Deut 5
30), then expanded with David (2 Sam 7:117).8 However the
presentation of covenant in Kings is more nuanced than this. The book
uses the word covenant ( )22 times to refer to a covenant between
Yahweh and Israel, and 20 times with the Mosaic covenant in mind (1
Kgs 3:15; 6:19; 8:1, 6, 21, 23; 11:11; 19:10, 14; 2 Kgs 17:15, 35, 38;
18:12; 23:23, 21).9 Of the two instance of that are not explicitly
Mosaic, one is Jehoiadas covenant in 2 Kgs 11:17, which in context is
also likely to be a Deuteronomic renewal. The other is 2 Kings 13:23,
which refers to Yahwehs covenant with Abraham. This is the only
mention of the Abrahamic covenant in the book, the importance of which
I will explore below. In every other case, covenant-related language is
reserved to highlight Israels failure to Yahwehs commands given
through Moses.10 Thus, covenant language in Kings becomes associated
with the curse promised in the eventuality of covenant breach.
By contrast, Kings never uses covenant language to refer to the
Davidic covenant (cf. 2 Sam 7:117, 2 Sam 23:5). Rather, Kings speaks
of Yahweh establishing the word ( )that he spoke to David, and
uses language that highlights the unilateral nature of that agreement.
Yahwehs word to David has or will be fulfilled (1 Kgs 8:15, 24; ),
established (1 Kgs 8:20; ), kept (1 Kgs 8:25; ), and
confirmed (1 Kgs 8:26; ), just as he spoke (1 Kgs 2:24; 5:5; 6:12;
9:5; ) .11 Kings uses this word language to emphasise
8. See Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical,
Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 14756.
9. Apart from explicit mention, there are numerous allusions to the Horeb covenant
through mention of Moses (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:3; 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 8:6; 14:6; 21:8; 23:25),
Torah (2 Kgs 10:31; 17:13, 34, 37; 23:24), or other Deuteronomic language (e.g., 1 Kgs
3:6). The Ark of the Covenant explicitly refers to the Horeb covenant (1 Kgs 8:21); the
Book of the Covenant found by Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8) is very likely to be some form of
Deuteronomy.
10. Solomons prayer of dedication reflects on how Yahwehs faithfulness to Moses
has established Israel within the land (1 Kgs 8:56). This is the only positive use of the
Mosaic covenant in the book, but it is not a future promise of blessing.
11. This is not to imply that 2 Sam 7 is something other than a covenant, since the book
understands the fulfilment of the Mosaic blessings and curses in these terms also (1
Kgs 8:56; 2 Kgs 17:23). Nor does it imply that the two are unrelated. One of the
features of Kings presentation of the Davidic covenant is to make it conditional on
covenant obedience to the Mosaic covenant. I will return to this below.
Yahwehs action in history.12 The word spoken to David is mentioned or

alluded to 26 times in Kings. The prophet Ahijahs speech to Jeroboam
(1 Kgs 11:3139) introduces a motif that recurs throughout the book: that
Yahweh would act so that David might always have a lamp before me
in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19). This leitmotif occurs in
response to Judahs disobedience to the Mosaic covenant, and therefore
the word to David is a promise that stands independent of the Mosaic
covenant. I will reflect this distinction in this essay by referring to the
Mosaic covenant, along with its inevitable curse, in contrast to the
Davidic promise.13
By framing the covenants in this way, the book of Kings
positions itself to explore the outcome of Israels history as a function of
the tension that exists between promise and curse. It asks, for example,
whether Israels disobedience to Moses threatens the fulfilment of
Yahwehs promise to David, whether the promise to David supersedes
the Mosaic covenant entirely, and whether Israel should expect the
fulfilment of the Davidic promise only in the case that they are able to
obey Moses. Ultimately, as we shall see, Kings does not expect either
covenant curse or Davidic promise to be undone, and it is precisely in
this theological dilemma that hope arises in the book. When Israel, from
the context of the exile, reflects on their history through the narrative of
Kings, they realise that their curse has been enacted, and therefore the
demands of the Mosaic covenant have been met. From exile, then, hope
is found because the exile represents a new beginning, free from the
curse of the Mosaic covenant. Since the promise to David has not been
12. Every prophetic utterance recorded in the book (eventually) happens according to
the word of Yahweh ( ) during the course of the narrative (1 Kgs 12:24; 13:26;
14:18, etc.). Therefore, fulfilment of Yahwehs word has long been recognised as a
theme of Kings. Von Rad tabulated the predictions and fulfilments in Kings and notes
that Kings also fulfils some prophetic announcements from the Deuteronomistic history
more generally (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:27 fulfils 1 Sam 2:2736.) Gerhard Von Rad, From
Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2005), 15759.
13. Strictly speaking, the curse is a promise as well. Indeed, this is the point, because
the two promises of God are in opposition, which creates the narrative tension.
However, to understand the promise of curse and the promise of blessing as alternate
outcomes of the one covenant misses the point of Kings because it undoes the tension
that requires both. The language the book uses in association with David implies that,
conceptually at least, it is possible that this word of blessing will stand even after the
covenant curse has been enacted. Because word is awkward in English, I have chosen
to use language of promise, in opposition to covenant and curse, as a way to
better reflect the underlying theology of the book.
fulfilled, it shapes what Israel might hope for in this new beginning. I
will explore the shape of this hope both in messianic and nationalistic
terms.
IS THE DAVIDIC PROMISE NULLIFIED
BY COVENANT DISOBEDIENCE?
The 2 Sam 7 version of the Davidic promise was explicitly not
conditioned on obedience to Moses (2 Sam 7:1415), but in Kings it is
always linked to the covenant and its fulfilment always requires
obedience (1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12; 8:25; 9:57). Therefore, one possibility for
resolving the tension between promise and curse is to read the narrative
as an explanation of why the promise has been nullified.14 Although this
interpretation has been common,15 there are several reasons why it is
unsuitable.
First, although the promise is stated in conditional form, its
continued unconditional nature is reflected in other ways. The burning
lamp leitmotif (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19) reaffirms Yahwehs
purpose to preserve Judah because of his commitment to David, and
Yahweh continues to deal favourably with the southern dynasty for the
sake of David (1 Kgs 11:1213, 3236; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6).
Also, phrases like those in 11:36, that David might always ()
have a lamp before me, are universal and unconditional (see also 11:32,
39). There is no explicit abrogation of the Davidic promise in the book of
Kings, but there is explicit reaffirmation of Yahwehs choice of David (1
Kgs 8:16; 11:34).16
Second, other positive factors in the book can be understood as
indicators of the continued validity of the Davidic promise into the exile.
These include the ongoing commitment to Davids city as Yahwehs
chosen habitation (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 14:21; 23:27),17 in some cases forever
(1 Kgs 8:13; 9:3; 10:9; 2 Kgs 21:7), and the continued role of Zion
during exile (1 Kgs 8:4651).
14. As per the priestly lineage of Eli (1 Sam 2:30).
15. E.g., Wolff, Kerygma, 86.
16. Janzen argues that the compiler of Kings both knew 2 Sam 7 and intentionally
refused to abrogate it, and that this is true whether the book stands independently of the
rest of the Deuteronomic history or not (An Ambiguous Ending, 5051).
17. 2 Kgs 23:27 indicates that Yahweh has cast off ( )Jerusalem, but I will discuss
this text below.
Third and perhaps most decisively, is the evidence of the

contrasted fate of the two kingdoms. Throughout the book, the Davidic
dynasty is maintained despite the continued sin of the Davidic kings, the
best efforts of Athaliah to annihilate the Davidic line (2 Kgs 11:16), and
even the exile (2 Kgs 25:2730). By contrast, the northern kingdom
experiences eight dynasties. In turn each walks in the way of Jeroboam
son of Nebat,18 and so suffers the fate of Jeroboams dynasty: every
male in the dynasty is cut off (1 Kgs 14:10; see also 1 Kgs 16:11
21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8). This phrase recurs for each of the major northern
dynasties, indicating a pattern in the way Yahweh deals with Israel that
parallels and reverses the burning lamp leitmotif of the southern
kingdom. What accounts for the different ways that Yahweh deals with
the two kingdoms?19 The mitigating factor is the Davidic promise. The
only equivalent promise offered to the northern kingdom was entirely
conditional on obedience and breached almost immediately (1 Kgs
11:3738).20 Ultimately the exile of the northern kingdom is not only
attributed to covenant disobedience (2 Kgs 17:723), but also to their
separation from David. References to this separation frame the history of
the North (What portion do we have with David? 1 Kgs 12:16; 2 Kgs
17:21), and sit alongside covenant disobedience as a reason for their
exile (see 1 Kgs 12:19). In juxtaposing the two histories in this way, the
book of Kings affirms the continuing validity of the Davidic promise.
DOES THE DAVIDIC PROMISE ABROGATE
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COVENANT?
The Davidic promise stands in Kings whether Davids descendants are
faithful to the Mosaic covenant or not. But if the promise is certain, what
18. Apart from Jeroboam I there are 20 such verdicts: 1 Kgs 15:26, 30, 34; 16:2, 13, 19,
26; 21:22, 52; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28.
19. One possibility is Janzens suggestion that the sin of the South is of a different kind
than the sin of the North. This argument depends on a distinction between the sins of
northern kings, who cause Israel to sin (hiphil of ), and those of the South who do
not. Janzen proposes that the northern kings suffer the punishment associated with this
sin (1 Kgs 15:29; 16:1216; 2 Kgs 9:1410:17), but Davids line simply continues until
this type of sin is committed, which happens first with Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:11). Yet,
when Manasseh causes Judah to sin the punishment is not met. In the end, the release
of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:2730) is a decisive break of grace in the well-established
pattern, as Janzen also recognizes (ibid., 4954).
20. Note that this promise also avoids covenant language, preferring to use the word
language that has until now been associated with the Davidic promise.
10
role does the Mosaic covenant play in the message of the book? The key
question is why the compiler of Kings reframed the Davidic promise as
dependent on obedience to Moses when he did not intend to undo the
unconditional promise of 2 Sam 7. What is gained by adding conditions
to an unconditional covenant?21
It accomplishes two things. First, it creates space for the
Deuteronomistic assessment of individual kings without jeopardising the
ultimate fulfilment of the promise. The continued validity of the Davidic
promise does not imply that every Davidic scion will be automatically
blessed,22 and not every Davidic scion must be obedient in order for God
to ultimately fulfil his promise. Rather, God is free to enact the covenant
curses for disobedience, knowing that one of Davids future offspring
will yet receive the blessings. This is possible even from exile (2 Kgs
25:2730), which is the ultimate curse for covenant breach (Deut 29:22
28).
Second, it shapes the overall messianic expectation of the book.
McConville notes that as the story progresses, it becomes clearer that
there is a deep tension in the narrative, whose resolution will not be in
terms of unqualified hope for Judah in contrast to menace for the north
only.23 Rather, both covenant and promise remain in effect: punishment
for any dynasty in breach of Mosess, including Davids, but ultimate
blessing for David nevertheless. The tension gives the overall narrative a
messianic overtone as it awaits its only possible resolution: a righteous
covenant-keeping king to sit on the throne of David.
Solomon is a fine example of the way the Mosaic covenant
critiques the Davidic kings despite the Davidic promise. References to
the Davidic promise are clustered around Solomon,24 and he is explicitly
portrayed as the promised Davidic scion on multiple occasions: from his
own lips (1 Kgs 2:24, 33, 45; 3:6; 5:5 [Heb. 5:19]; 8:20, 2426), by his
father (1 Kgs 2:4), by Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:7 [Heb. 5:21]), by Yahweh
21. McConville has explored this question in relation to the book of Deuteronomy
where there is a parallel tension. See J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study
in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 13439. In the book
of Deuteronomy, the question is whether the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant
supersedes the certainty of the promised blessing to Abraham, and I am indebted to his
line of reasoning for the argument I use here with respect to Kings.
22. McConville, 1 Kings VIII, 7779.
23. McConville, Narrative and Meaning, 38.
24. Of the 26 allusions to the Davidic promise in Kings, 22 are found in the Solomon
narratives.
11
(1 Kgs 6:12; 9:5; 11:1213), and the narrator (1 Kgs 2:12). On the
surface, the account of Solomons achievements seems overwhelmingly
positive. His kingdom is presented as idyllic (1 Kgs 4:25): the fulfilment
of patriarchal promises for a multitudinous nation (1 Kgs 3:8, Gen 15:5;
1 Kgs 4:20, Gen 22:17), the land of Canaan (1 Kgs 4:21, Gen 15:1819),
and the blessings of the Mosaic covenant (1 Kgs 8:56, Deut 12:1013). It
is understandable, then, that many interpret Solomons kingdom as a
foreshadowing of the kingdom of God, and Solomon as a prototype of
Gods ideal, wise king.25
Yet, this is an unbalanced portrait of Solomon in Kings. Even
throughout the early chapters of the book, prior to his explicit apostasy in
1 Kgs 11, there is a subtext that critiques Solomons reign.26 The
Deuteronomic laws of kingship (Deut 17:1420) read like a checklist of
anti-Solomonic rhetoric: forbidding the acquisition of horses (1 Kgs
10:26), trade with Egypt (1 Kgs 10:28), accumulation of gold (1 Kgs
10:27), and collection of wives (1 Kgs 11:1). And even though
Deuteronomy enjoins Israels king to read, copy, and recite the law,
Solomon is never portrayed as doing this.
Solomons failure is broader than explicit disobedience.27 His
use of his wisdom comes under narrative critique, even though it is a
divine gift (1 Kgs 3:1014). He is charged by David to establish the
kingdom according to his wisdom (1 Kgs 2:6, 9), which results in the
assassination of his political enemies (1 Kgs 3:1346). His alliance with
Hiram of Tyre is portrayed as a result of his wisdom (1 Kgs 5:12), and
yet requires the forced labour of thousands of his own people (1 Kgs
5:1318). The same treaty jeopardises Israelite territory (1 Kgs 9:10
11)28 and results in a further breach of Deuteronomic law (Deut 17:15).
25. E.g., Provan, The Messiah in the Book of Kings, 7677. His eventual demise (1
Kgs 11) has done little to detract from this image, in many eyes he has simply
succumbed to the weakness of human failure at the end of his life.
26. There is a recent trend in scholarship to explore the ambiguity of Solomons
character. E.g., Walter A. Brueggemann, Solomon: Israels Ironic Icon of Human
Achievement (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2005), 15359; J.
Daniel Hays, Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative
Subtlety in 1 Kings 111, JSOT 28 (2003): 155; Hugh S. Pyper, Judging the Wisdom
of Solomon: The Two-Way Effect of Intertextuality, JSOT (1993): 35; and Kim I.
Parker, Solomon as Philosopher King: The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1
11, JSOT (1992): 76.
27. I am indebted to Davies and Hays here, who outline the different ways that the
narrative subtly presents Solomon as a failure in his foreign alliances. See John A.
Davies, Discerning Between Good and Evil: Solomon as a New Adam in 1 Kings,
WTJ 73 (2011): 5253 and Hays, Has the Narrator, 163.
12
In his wisdom (1 Kgs 10:2324) he trades military hardware to the

Hittites and the Arameans (1 Kgs 10:29), who will be Israels enemies in
years to come. He divides his kingdom into twelve taxation districts (1
Kgs 4:719), leaving the province of Judah exempt, and extracts an
exorbitant royal provision from each on a monthly basis (1 Kgs 4:22
28). Although this is portrayed as another act of wisdom (1 Kgs 4:29
34), it closely matches Samuels warning that the people would become
slaves ( )to the king (1 Sam 8:1018), and it left his people
complaining about the hard service ( ) that he imposed (1
Kgs 12:4), which is something that they had not suffered since Egypt (Ex
1:14).29 In a play on words, the glory ( )of Solomons kingdom is at
the same time his heavy yoke ( ) that hangs around the necks of
his people (1 Kgs 12:4). In the end, Solomons wisdom results in an
intolerable kingdom.
As Leithart comments, Solomon fails precisely at the height of
his wisdom . . . precisely in his exercise of wisdom. 30 This is a critique
of the ability of wisdom to build the kind of kingdom that Yahweh can
bless, and shows that wisdom does not necessarily lead to obedience.
The Solomon presented in Kings was a fulfilment of Davidic hope (1
Kgs 3:6), and blessed in ability, power, and resources, but his kingdom
failed because he was unable to keep the Mosaic covenant (1 Kgs 11:11).
Ironically, Solomon did not request wisdom in the first place, but a
listening heart ( ; 1 Kgs 3:9). If that request had been granted in
the Deuteronomic sense, it would have yielded the covenant obedience
required of him (Deut 5:2729, 6:45). But Yahweh instead answered his
request by giving him a wise and discerning heart ( ; 1 Kgs
3:12), a gift that granted him discernment between good and evil (
; 1 Kgs 3:9): a foreboding allusion to Gen 3:5.31 Through this
divine gift of wisdom Solomon was able to construct a glorious kingdom,
but was unable to yield obedience. And so the most promising of Davidic
candidates is judged inadequate in the end according to the standards of
the Mosaic covenant.
______________________________________________________
28. Compare Naboths attitude to Israelite land in 1 Kgs 21:3.
29. Peter J. Leithart suggests that Solomon increasingly becomes more Pharaonic as the
narrative progresses, until Israel finds themselves symbolically back in Egypt under his
rule (1 & 2 Kings [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2006], 76).
30. Ibid., 82.
31. See Davies, Discerning Between Good and Evil, 4144.
13
WILL THE DAVIDIC PROMISE BE FULFILLED

BY MEANS OF THE COVENANT?
Kings, therefore, expects the fulfilment of the Davidic promise, but
refuses to override the demands of the covenant in order to do so. The
only resolution is that a righteous king must appear. Thus, messianic
hope is sharply focused in Kings on Josiah who is presented as the
righteous King par excellence (2 Kgs 23:25). This hope is established
prior to Josiahs actual appearance by 31 chapters. The prophecy of the
unnamed man of God from the South against Jeroboam I mentions
Josiah by name (1 Kgs 13:16). It comes precisely at the point when the
North decisively breaks away from David (1 Kgs 12:16), transgressing
their own dynastic covenant (1 Kgs 11:38, see also 1 Kgs 12:30). The
key component of the prophecy is that the apostate religion created by
Jeroboam I will be undone only by the scion of David named Josiah (1
Kgs 13:2), and therefore by implication, hope for the northern kingdom
will only be found in reunification with the Davidic dynasty (see 1 Kgs
12:16).32
Josiah succeeds precisely where Solomon failed. In contrast to
Solomon, Josiah is the king who does listen ( )to the Law of Moses
(2 Kgs 22:11, 1819), who reads ( )it (2 Kgs 22:10, 16; 23:2; Deut
17:19), who keeps (), and does ( )it (2 Kgs 22:2, 13; 23:3,
21; Deut 17:19). Unlike Solomon, there is no subtextual critique here.
Rather, the endorsement of the book toward Josiah can hardly be
overstated (2 Kgs 22:2; 23:25; Deut 6:45). Josiah renews the covenant
(2 Kgs 23:13), destroys idol worship in Judah (2 Kgs 23:414), begins
to do so in the former northern kingdom (2 Kgs 23:1520), and
reinstitutes the Passover (2 Kgs 23:2127).
If one were to pause the narrative at 2 Kgs 23:25 to ask what
kind of kingdom is expected from Josiah, then the answer would come
unequivocally: one based not on wisdom, power, or wealth like
Solomons kingdom, but on hearing and obeying the law of Moses. At
this point, then, the hope offered by Kings seems to be contingent on
repentance. Many have proposed that this might be the larger message of
the book of Kings,33 and it is not without wider textual support. The word
, used in the sense of repentance, is thematic in Solomons prayer of
dedication (1 Kgs 8:2253, used six times). This passage is widely
32. This is paralleled in nearly all of the prophetic literature. See Hos 3:45, Amos
9:1115, Jer 33:2326, Ezek 37:1528.
33. This is Wolffs thesis, that future hope in Kings is based on repentance. Wolff,
Kerygma, 9193. See more recently Janzen, The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah, 370.
14
understood to be indicative of the Deuteronomists purpose.34 Similarly,

Elijahs confrontation with the prophets of Baal has been understood as a
case study in the hope that repentance offers, that after the time of
judgment, the way to live in peaceful communion with God is open for
everybodyone needs only to give up the other gods and return to the
way of Yahweh.35
However, understanding the message of the book as a call to
repentance requires qualification in terms of the overall shape of the
book. As right as repentance might be in response to covenant breach
(Deut 30:2), every instance of repentance in the book fails to usher in the
promised kingdom in the longer term. The story of Elijahs victory over
Baal and the repentance of the people (1 Kgs 18:3940) is undone just
one verse later (1 Kgs 19:1) with Elijahs failure, the return of the Baal
cult through Jezebel, and Elijahs flight to Horeb (1 Kgs 19:13). Kings
from the North who repent invariably have their dynasty extended by
several generations (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:2529; 2 Kgs 22:19), but judgment
still comes in the end.36 Even when Hezekiah repents and Jerusalem is
delivered from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:20), judgment is only suspended
for a time (2 Kgs 20:1019). Even though repentance is the right
response to a breach of the Mosaic covenant, as Solomon prayed (1 Kgs
34. Solomons final petition in particular (1 Kgs 8:4653) is commonly thought to be a
message addressed directly to the exiles (e.g., McConville, Narrative and Meaning,
36).
35. Otto, The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories, 504. Despite this, many who
would understand a call to repentance as the core message of the book have not been
inclined to examine 1 Kgs 18 for support. Wolff, for example, does not mention Elijah
or Elisha anywhere in his Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work because of
his focus on the purposes of the Deuteronomist. Even though Elijahs confrontation
with the cult of Baal might have aligned with Deuteronomistic interests (1 Kgs 19:10,
19:14), Otto points out that . . . stories of Elijah and Elisha seem to have no particular
purpose within the Deuteronomists conception of history and theology and that the
Deuteronomists seem to pay no attention to the happenings in 1 Kgs 1719 at all
(ibid., 494). He outlines several problems with the portrayal of Elijah and the stories
concerning him if indeed they were pre-exilic stories incorporated into the book by the
hand of the Deuteronomist(s), and goes on to propose that they were likely inserted
sometime later; either late in or shortly after the exile. Interestingly, this means that
there are two schools of thought, both of which argue that repentance is the message of
Kings, but that ultimately disagree with each other as to where that message is found.
Wolff and those who follow him find the message within the work of the
Deuteronomist, but Otto argues that it was inserted after the work of the
Deuteronomists, presumably because they did not find within the Deuteronomistic
version of Kings the message of repentance that they wished to convey!
36. Leslie J. Hoppe, The Death of Josiah and the Meaning of Deuteronomy, LA 48
(1998): 3147.
15
8:33, 34, 35, 47, 48), it is not the ultimate source of hope for the future.
Solomons prayer may encourage repentance of its exilic readership, but
it does not encourage a belief that repentance will restore Israel from
exile. It only asks for forgiveness from sin and compassion from their
captors (1 Kgs 8:4653). Something more than repentance is ultimately
required if the Davidic promise is to be fulfilled.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than the Josiah narrative. The
dust from Josiahs conquest has not even settled (2 Kgs 23:6, 12, 15)
when the reader is abruptly reminded that Josiah too will fail. Josiah has
turned ( )to Yahweh (2 Kgs 23:25), but Yahweh has not turned ()
from his anger (2 Kgs 23:2627). National repentance has not atoned for
the former breach of covenant,37 as Josiah understands (2 Kgs 22:13).
Neither is the prophetic message from Huldah one of blessing and
restoration following repentance, but rather one of certain judgment
despite it (2 Kgs 22:1618).
Since Josiah is the archetypal covenant-keeping ruler in Kings,38
his untimely death (2 Kgs 23:2930) at once lays to rest any hope that
Mosaic reform will establish the kingdom promised to David, and
removes any notion that the message of the book might be that reform in
exile will trigger the fulfilment of the Davidic promise.
But what then of the messianic arc that began in 1 Kgs 13:2? 39
Despite the imposing volume of scholarly attention devoted to Josiah,
comparatively little attention has been given to the role he plays in the
narrative as it now stands.40 Simply by its context within a wider
narrative of ultimate failure, the Mosaic reforms of Josiah take their
place among a long list of things that do not work to fulfil Davidic hope.
Therefore, in the end, the covenant is seen to be an unsuitable vehicle for
37. Janzen, The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah, 361.
38. Unlike Solomon, Josiahs relationship to the Davidic promise is underplayed. Only
once does the narrative remind us that Josiah is a Davidic heir (2 Kgs 22:2). By contrast
Hezekiah, Judahs other great reformer, is explicitly portrayed as Davidic several times
(2 Kgs 18:3; 19:34; 20:5). Kings primarily understands Josiah in relation to covenant,
and Hezekiah, as we shall see, in relation to promise, and then examines them in that
light.
39. This question is precisely what drove Cross to propose his double-redaction theory.
See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 27478.
40. Even if, as Cross asserted (ibid., 27478), the book of Kings developed from a
document intended to support Josianic reform, the role of Josiah in the final narrative is
neither to demonstrate a successful king (according to the hopes of the Davidic
promise), nor a successful kingdom. See Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, 26671 and James R.
Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 22935.
16
the realisation of the promises to David. Even in the hands of the most
law-abiding of kings, the Mosaic covenant is unable to usher in the
kingdom of promise simply because the covenant lacks what is needed
most: a means by which former sin might be forgiven (2 Kgs 23:2627;
see 1 Kgs 8:46).41
THE EXILE AS YAHWEHS NEW BEGINNING
If the Mosaic covenant is unable to realise the Davidic promise then the
exile itself becomes a symbol of hope because it fulfils the curses of the
Mosaic covenant (2 Kgs 17:723, Deut 29:2428),42 but leaves Israel
with the promise that a righteous, covenant-keeping Davidic king will
yet come. The exile is not simply Yahwehs judgment, but the chance for
him to now act according to the blessings he has promised, unrestricted
by the demands of the curses (see Deut 30:16).
Although, strictly speaking, the exiles of the northern and
southern kingdoms occur finally in 2 Kgs 17 and 2425 respectively,
they have been foreshadowed in the narrative long before that.43 Kings
begins with an account of Yahweh establishing and blessing the united
kingdom by fighting against their enemies (1 Kgs 2:12, 24, 45, 46), and
ends with Yahweh having set those enemies against his own people to
destroy them (2 Kgs 24:23). The turning point in the exercise of
Yahwehs power is not the exile itself; it is Elijahs flight to Horeb, and
particularly 1 Kgs 19:1518. Two events occur within these verses that
are of interest.
First, Yahweh will bring judgment on the house of Ahab (1 Kgs
19:17). He not only intends to raise up Jehu, but Hazaela Syrian
against Ahabs dynasty. This important moment marks the only occasion
in Israels historical literature that a non-Israelite is anointed ().44
41. Kings makes a similar point as Jer 31:3134 through the narrative theology of the
book. In the context of exile, Jeremiah also reaffirms the Davidic promise (Jer 33:14
17), but envisages the need for a new covenant unlike the Mosaic covenant (Jer 31:32)
whereby sin might be forgiven (Jer 31:34). Neither Kings nor Jeremiah implies that the
Mosaic law is no longer important for the exiles (Jer 31:33), but rather the modification
of the covenant terms whereby Israel might live (Deut 5:33).
42. Note the way the narrator relates the exile to the Mosaic covenant (v. 7): . . .
. . . .
43. The fate of the northern kingdom was sealed from the time of Jeroboam I (1 Kgs
14:16).
44. This is paralleled in the prophetic corpus as a sign of Yahwehs sovereignty over
the foreign powers, and that even the mighty Cyrus unwittingly serves Yahweh (Is
17
Hazael will serve Yahwehs purpose. He will be a thorn in the side of

Ahab and a means of destruction for Israel, and in doing so he
foreshadows Yahwehs later use of Assyria and Babylon for the same
purpose. Therefore, within the narrative of Kings, Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18)
represents a final offer by Yahweh to call the northern kingdom to
repentance and covenant faithfulness through his prophet (1 Kgs 18:21).
Having won the battle (1 Kgs 18:3940), but losing the war (1 Kgs 19:1
3), Elijah travels to Horeb where Yahweh instructs him to commission
Elisha with a different purpose: the judgment of the northern kingdom. It
is tempting to see Elishas numerous similarities to Elijah as the
controlling factor in understanding the narratives in 2 Kgs 413 (see 2
Kgs 2:9), but despite similarities in the miracle stories, Elishas overall
purpose is different. Where Elijah calls Israel to repent (1 Kgs 18:21),
Elisha is to prepare their burial (1 Kgs 19:17).45 Yahweh has now turned
against Israel, and so the exile has effectively, if not literally, begun.
Judah will follow Israel in due course (2 Kgs 20:1218).
The second thing of interest at Horeb is Yahwehs answer to
Elijah when he protests that the people of Israel have forsaken your
covenant (1 Kgs 19:14). Yahweh informs him that I will cause 7,000 to
remain (hiphil of ). This introduces to the narrative the concept of a
remnant ( )of Israel who will survive the coming judgment of
Yahweh (1 Kgs 19:18).46 Following this story the narrative introduces an
enigmatic group identified repeatedly as the Sons of the Prophets (1
Kgs 20:35, 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1), who are closely
tied with the ministry of Elisha.47 The often maligned incident in 2 Kgs
______________________________________________________
44:2845:1). Hazael is strictly speaking the only anointed one in Kings.
45. Wesley J. Bergen fails to see this shift in the nature of prophetic ministry and
argues, instead, that Elisha failed in his prophetic duty to call Israel to any real kind of
repentance (Elijah and the End of Prophetism [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999],
176). See also Philip E. Satterthwaite (The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2
Kings 28, TynBul 49 [1998], 128), who makes the same assumption.
46. The verb is a weqatal (), which places it in logical (but not necessarily
temporal) sequence with the judgment verbs of the previous verse (v. 17). Hazael will
put to death and Elisha will put to death, but Yahweh will cause to remain. That
is, this should not be understood simply as Yahwehs answer to Elijahs complaint that
Israel has forsaken your covenant and only I am left (v. 14). Yahweh is not saying,
Its OK, there are 7,000 after all! Rather, this is an exilic promise: a group who will
survive the coming judgment of Hazael and Jehu.
47. Scholarship on this group has been concerned with identifying a historical subcommunity of Israel to whom to attach the label . See Michael Avioz, The
Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part 2), Currents 5 (2006): 72. While this is an
interesting question, it is not necessary in order to understand the role of the group
within the narrative of Kings.
18
2:1525 illustrates the relationship between Elisha and this group well.
Immediately following Elijahs ascension, Elisha performs two miracles
that reveal the nature of his ministry. The first is a deliverance miracle,
directed specifically towards this group (2 Kgs 2:1522). The second is a
judgment miracle directed against some Israelite boys (2 Kgs 2:2325).
Throughout his ministry, Elishas deliverance miracles are not directed
for the benefit of Israel generally, but only for this group (see 2 Kgs 4:1
7, 3844; 6:16),48 or for the benefit of Israels enemies (2 Kgs 3:127;
5:114; 6:823).49
Although Elishas ministry is focused particularly on the house
of Ahab, it illustrates the wider point. Through his ministry we see that
Yahweh will no longer direct his energy toward building and maintaining
the old Israelite kingdoms because Israel has forsaken the covenant (1
Kgs 19:10, 14) and all that remains is the curse. Yahweh continues to
exercise patience, especially when confronted with a penitent king (1
Kgs 21:2529; 2 Kgs 22:19), but the curse will not be undone. Exile is
inevitable. However, precisely in this exile there is hope because
Yahweh will do something new, and the Davidic promise is not the only
indication we have from Kings as to what that new thing will be. We
now also understand this new Israel through the prophetic concept of
remnant.
The question of hope in the book of Kings has now taken us in
two directions. First, the book continues to expect a Davidic scion, even
into the exile. And second, in light of the covenantal failures of Israel
and Judah, the book refocuses the readers attention away from those
kingdoms and toward the prophetic ministry and the remnant that will
survive exile. I now turn to assessing those two strands of hope.
THE SHAPE OF MESSIANIC HOPE IN THE BOOK OF KINGS
What would the Messiah of Gods new beginning look like? Obviously
messianic hope is grounded in the Davidic promise (2 Sam 7:1216), so
48. Although not explicitly identified as part of this group, the narrative placement of
the miracle in Shunem (2 Kgs 4:810), sandwiched between two Sons of the
Prophets miracles (4:17, 3844), as well as the indication that the woman fears
Yahweh (4:9), indicates that this is not a break in the pattern. Elisha is still directing his
energy toward those who have not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kgs 19:18). It is the
same woman in 2 Kgs 8:16.
49. The story of the siege of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:247:2), which involves only an oracle
(rather than a miracle) from Elisha, appears to be an exception to the pattern. It can be
explained because Hazael, rather than Ben-hadad, was to be Yahwehs anointed ()
against Israel (1 Kgs 19:17), and Hazael will not become king of Syria until 2 Kgs 8.
19
the Messiah will be a Davidic scion. Beyond this, I have argued above
that the only possible resolution to the tension between covenant and
promise is that a king must appear who is righteous by Mosaic standards.
Since the promise is certain, the book encourages hope for this kind of
Messiah. Deuteronomy 17:1420 outlines the expectation: an Israelite
who does not rely on militarily power, who is not prone to accumulating
wives and money, who is subject to the law of Moses, and who is
humble. There are no kings like this in the book of Kings.50
Usually, discussions of messianic hope in Kings examine as case
studies those few southern kings that the narrative endorses. For
example, Provans study understands Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah to
function messianically when read in the wider context of the Former
Prophets.51 There is some truth to thisthe Messiah that Kings expects
should be wise, faithful, and righteous. However to understand Judahs
good kings as messianic case studies requires a reading of the book that
overlooks the overall shape of the narrative because ultimately each of
these kings failed. Solomon did not fail because he stopped being wise,
Hezekiah did not fail because he stopped trusting, and neither did Josiah
fail because he transgressed the covenant. Furthermore, none of these
kings live up to Deut 17:1420 despite their endorsement from the
narrator. It can hardly be the argument of the book that the hoped-for
Messiah will be a king like these.52 Rather, the book hopes that
someone greater than Solomon might one day appear.53
The key to messianic hope in the book is to ask how it is shaped
by the failure of these kings and their kingdoms, as the account of
Jehoiachin demonstrates (2 Kgs 25:27).54 Jehoiachin is released in the
thirty-seventh year of the exile, but regains neither kingdom nor crown.
Rather, he lives indebted to the king of Babylon, who lifts his head and
speaks kindly too him ( ; 2 Kgs 25:2728).55 Thus
50. Even Josiah does not meet this standard, despite his endorsement. See J. Gordon
McConville, Deuteronomy (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 21617.
51. Provan, The Messiah in the Book of Kings, 8081.
52. I do not have the space here to do full justice to Provans reading, which is more
nuanced than my brief portrayal here suggests; however, I think the critique stands.
53. I allude, of course, to Matt 12:42.
54. The release of Jehoiachin has been the interpretive crux of the whole debate on
hope in the books of Kings. See Gerhard Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D.
M. G. Stalker; London: SCM, 1953), 9091. Here I am indebted here to Levensons
careful reading of Jehoiachins release (The Last Four Verses, 35658).
55. Levenson argues that this phrase ( ) should be understood as the
20
Jehoiachin becomes an example of something new. He is a Davidic heir

without a throne. Unable to reign from Davids city, Jehoiachin lives in
exile, under the dominion of his enemy and dependent on his welfare.
But the Davidic hope is not extinguished in the strangeness of this new
situation. The historical reality of exile is neither antithetical to the wider
purposes of Yahweh for Israel, nor is it detrimental to his ability to fulfill
the promise that he made to David.56
In fact, more than this, Jehoiachin in exile represents no less
hope than Solomon did in the glory days of Israels past. The Solomon of
Kings was a failed David, and the Davidic promise was as uncertain in
his kingdom as it is in exile. In both cases the accomplishment of the
promised kingdom relied solely on Yahwehs ability to work through,
and in spite of, human failure. The shape of messianic hope in Kings
remains the same in exile: a Davidic heir on the throne of David.
However, it is complemented here by the surprising message that, for a
time at least, it is acceptable to Yahweh that such a king find himself in
the hands of the nations. From a human point of view, this is perhaps
even demanded by Deut 17:1420. Could a humble monarch of this type,
with neither military power nor excessive wealth and status really expect
to meet the needs of state?57 The difference between the two types of
monarch is nowhere better illustrated than Rehoboam, who when
challenged by his fathers advisors to choose humility over power, opts
instead to become a king like his father (1 Kgs 12:115). But the
advisors words are telling: If you will be a servant ( )to this people
today and serve them (), and speak good words to them (
) 58 when you answer them, then they will be your
servants forever (( )1 Kgs 12:7). This is what is required if
______________________________________________________
beginning of a treaty of subjugation between Evil-merodach and Jehoiachin, which is
plausible (ibid., 361). He concludes from this that the message of hope in Kings
represents part of an effort by an exilic Deuteronomistic source to bring the legacy of
the promissory covenant with David into line with the new historical reality effected by
the events of 587 B.C.E. and with the novel social and political situation of the
continuing Diaspora.
56. The exilic prophets agree with this sentiment, See Jer 29, esp. v. 7. The result of the
exile is that messianic hope in ancient Israel shifts in the direction that Israels postexilic literature will eventually take, in which a messianic figure, like Zerubbabel, can
be understood as a governor who reigns only at the pleasure of a foreign overlord
(see Hag 2:2023; Zech 5:610; 9:913).
57. J. Gordon McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political
Theology, GenesisKings (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 8081.
58. Which is something even Evil-merodach managed to do (2 Kgs 25:28)!
21
David is truly to always ( )have a lamp before me (1 Kgs

11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:9): a servant king.
THE SHAPE OF THE NEW ISRAEL IN THE BOOK OF KINGS
I turn now to the second strand of hope that arises in exile: the prophetic
ministry and the remnant. This hope is closely intertwined with the
concept of Israel in the book because it is the remnant from which the
new post-exilic Israel will emerge. The question of who is truly Israel in
Kings is a difficult one, and most who address it conclude that neither the
united monarchy, nor either the northern or southern kingdoms fully
embodies what it means to be Israel.59 However, the remnant has been
neglected as a possible answer,60 and I wish to redress that here. What
does the ministry of the prophets to gather a remnant indicate about the
nature of the new Israel?
Within Kings, the prophets are the channels through which
Yahweh enacts blessing on his people. This includes the obvious
instances of miraculous sustenance (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:816; 2 Kgs 2:1522;
4:17; 4:3844; 6:17), healing (2 Kgs 5:114), childbirth (2 Kgs 4:8
17), and resurrection (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:1724; 2 Kgs 4:1837; 13:2021).
But it goes further than this. The prophets mediate the word of Yahweh,
which makes them the means by which Yahweh works to accomplish his
purpose in history.61 The narrative establishes this in several ways. The
prophets alone have access to the word which comes ( )only to them
(1 Kgs 6:11; 13:20; 16:1, 7; 17:2, 8; 18:1; 21:17, 28; 2 Kgs 20:4).
Likewise, in the book of Kings the spirit of Yahweh rests only upon the
prophets (1 Kgs 18:12; 22:24; 2 Kgs 2:16), and the prophets alone have
access to heaven where Yahweh dwells (1 Kgs 22:1923; 2 Kgs 2:11; 1
Kgs 8:30). The prophets are in the unique position both to address kings
and to petition Yahweh (1 Kgs 13:6; 17:22; 2 Kgs 4:33; 6:1718). After
1 Kgs 19, as we have seen, all of these blessings belong to the remnant
rather than national Israel.
The theology of the temple in Solomons prayer of dedication
59. See Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings, 2930.
60. This neglect is because most of the stories in Kings concerning prophetic figures
are not considered Deuteronomistic, and scholarship on the meaning of Kings has been
largely focussed on the message of the Deuteronomist. See Otto, The Composition of
the Elijah-Elisha Stories, 48790 and Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 68.
61. I noted the connection between word language and Yahwehs action in history
above.
22
indicates that these blessings should be a function of the temple (1 Kgs

8:2261), which is to say that they belong to national Judah. However, in
the course of the narrative it becomes obvious that the temple will not
often be used for this purpose. The kings of Judah are far more likely to
plunder the temple than pray toward it (1 Kgs 14:26; 15:18; 2 Kgs
11:10). In any case the temple is unavailable to mediate Yahweh to the
northern kingdom (1 Kgs 12:27). Even though the temple remains a
potential source of blessing for Judah, in the course of the narrative what
is promised through the temple usually occurs through the prophets:
1 Kgs 8:2830
Sought at the Temple

God will hear cries and pleas
1 Kgs 8:3132
Condemning guilty,
vindicating righteous
1 Kgs 8:3334
1 Kgs 8:3536
1 Kgs 8:3740
Salvation after military defeat

Rain in time of drought
Supply in time of famine
1 Kgs 8:4143
Prayers of foreigners heard
1 Kgs 8:4445
Victory in battle
1 Kgs 8:4653
Compassion in exile
Delivered by Prophets
1 Kgs 13:6; 17:22; 18:36
37; 2 Kgs 4:1837; 6:17
1 Kgs 13:2122; 14:716;
18:2040; 20:3543; 21:17
24; etc.
2 Kgs 7:12; 13:1419
1 Kgs 18:4146; 2 Kgs 3:17
1 Kgs 17:816; 2 Kgs 4:1
7, 3844
1 Kgs 17:816; 2 Kgs 5:1
14
1 Kgs 20:13, 28; 2 Kgs 7:1
20
Who then is Israel within Kings? Is it those who have the temple or those
who receive the blessings of the temple? For the exilic readers who are
without a temple, it is surely the latter. After 1 Kgs 19, the message of
hope in the book of Kings is to be found within the remnant who receive
Yahwehs provision and blessing, and not within nationalist Israel and
Judah, even if these two groups overlap at times.
What shape does this new Israel take in the story of Kings?
There are several clues in the narrative, the most prominent of which is
the role of faith, which is the correct response to the prophetic word. 62
Nowhere in the historical literature does the concept of faith arise so
frequently as 2 Kgs 1819, where it is closely linked with deliverance of
the remnant (2 Kgs 19:3031).63 All eight instances of the verb trust
62. It has become clear that Israel is unable to yield obedience, which is the correct
response to covenant.
63. This is the only other explicit occurrence of remnant in 12 Kings.
23
( )in Kings occur in these chapters, and nine of the 10 instances of

deliver ().64
The issue of these chapters is Isaiahs assurance to Hezekiah in
the face of Sennacheribs imposing army, and this conflict is framed in
covenant-promise terms. The Rabshakehs speech uses language highly
suggestive of Deuteronomy to confront Hezekiah with an alternative
covenant: each man at rest under his vine and fig tree, in a land of grain
and wine, olives and honey (2 Kgs 18:3132; Deut 8:79), bringing life
and not death (2 Kgs 18:32, Deut 30:1920).65 Hezekiahs choice is
between the covenant of Yahweh on the one hand and the covenant of
the Rabshakeh on the other (2 Kgs 18:1925). It is a powerful strategy
because the very presence of the Rabshakeh outside Jerusalem reminds
Judah that they are not recipients of the blessings of the Mosaic covenant
(see Deut 28:7). Perhaps they would do better with Assyria?
Isaiahs assurance to Hezekiah, however, follows a different
strategy. Rather than assuring Hezekiah of covenant blessing, he attacks
the pride of Assyria (2 Kgs 19:2128) and reminds Hezekiah of
Yahwehs promise to David (2 Kgs 19:34). In an event remarkable for its
peculiarity, Hezekiah listens to Isaiah and turns to Yahweh in faith (2
Kgs 19:67; 19:1419; see also 2 Kgs 18:5).66 The ministry of Isaiah
results in deliverance for Hezekiah and the postponement of judgment
for the sins of Judah (2 Kgs 20:1619). The reader of the book now
understands that the new Israel is the remnant that have faith in
Yahwehs promise (2 Kgs 19:3031).
Glimmers of hope for national Israel and Judah occasionally
occur this way (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:125), but for the most part the kings of
the two nations trust in anything other than Yahweh, thus finding
themselves opposed to the ministry of the prophets. While the two
nations decline, and while those with power refuse to listen, the prophets
go to the powerless (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:824; 2 Kgs 4). The Deuteronomic
blessing of oil, food, and life (Deut 7:13, 32:47) comes through the word
of the prophets to the desperate and the weak (1 Kgs 17:14, 2324; 2 Kgs
64. The lexical peculiarity can be explained if these chapters are the product of Isaiahs
hand rather than the compiler of Kings. Isaiah 3639 is nearly identical to 2 Kgs 18:13
19:37. John W. Olley (Trust in the Lord: Hezekiah, Kings and Isaiah, TynBul
[1999]: 77) ascribes them to a wisdom school operating in close proximity to Isaiah in
Hezekiahs court. Even so, their inclusion here plays an essential role in the narrative of
Kings.
65. For an extended comparison, see Dominic Rudman, Is the Rabshakeh also among
the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings XVIII 1735, VT 50 (2000): 1069.
66. This is the first time in the narrative since Solomons dedication that the temple has
been used for its intended purpose of prayer.
24
4:3235) and to the remnant who would not bow the knee to Baal (2 Kgs
2:1922; 4:3844; 6:16).
In the prophetic ministry of Elijah and Elisha it matters very
little whether these people are Israelite or not, as the Naaman narrative
demonstrates (2 Kgs 5, see also 1 Kgs 17:824). It is a story of reversals.
An oppressor of Israel become one of the oppressed, powerful Naaman
becomes helpless with leprosy (2 Kgs 5:1). His restoration involves
learning to trust the powerless (2 Kgs 5:4, 13) rather than appealing to
the powerful (2 Kgs 5:57, 1112). Naaman becomes like a child (2 Kgs
5:14) and becomes a servant himself ( is used five times in 2 Kgs
5:1518). In doing so he joins the new Israel of those who are blessed by
Yahweh (2 Kgs 5:1517). It is significant that Naaman leaves with a gift
of the land; not because Yahweh is localised in Israel as some have
supposed,67 but because the land is the promised inheritance of Israel, as
Naboth protested to Ahab (1 Kgs 21:4).68
By 2 Kgs 5 the kingdom of promise is now clearly found
amongst the remnant, who are the servants, the humble, the poor, and the
lowly. As Naaman becomes one of those, he too inherits the earth, and
hope for blessing comes to the Gentiles. This is not to imply that Naaman
becomes a national Israelite; clearly he does not. It is as a Gentile that he
comes to inherit the Israelite blessing, but this too is Deuteronomic: the
blessings of Yahweh go to the Gentiles when the wrath of God turns
against national Israel (Deut 32:21).
The curious and short account of Elishas death, or at least his
bones (2 Kgs 13:2021), is also noteworthy in the discussion of the new
Israel.69 There are strong textual links with the narrators comment that
follows it (2 Kgs 13:2223), so that the placement of the two becomes
highly suggestive of exilic themes.70 The word cast in v. 21 ( )is the
same word as used in v. 23, and throughout the book, to refer to
Yahwehs action of removing Israel from the land (2 Kgs 17:20; see also
1 Kgs 9:7; 2 Kgs 24:20). On its own, the repetition of this word is
67. E.g., Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 67; Hobbs, 2 Kings, 66.
The book of Kings itself rejects this conclusion by portraying Yahweh as sovereign
over foreign kings and nations, anointing them (1 Kgs 19:15), and using them for his
purposes (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:718).
68. See Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 15455; Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, 19597.
69. The episode has confused commentators who see it as essentially humorous or
inexplicable (e.g., Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 43233).
70. See Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 184.
25
unremarkable. However, 2 Kgs 13:2223 is also a very unusual passage.

The narrator gives numerous reminders that Yahweh would not destroy
the southern kingdom completely because of his promise to David, but
this is the only equivalent statement for the northern kingdom. This is
also the only recollection within Kings of the covenant with Abraham
that was inherited equally by the North and the South. Despite the use of
the term covenant (), the context closely mirrors the way the book
has spoken of the promise to David, so this sole reference to the
Abrahamic covenant provides the same basis for hope in the North as the
Davidic promise does in the South. By it the reader understands that the
northern kingdom was also an heir to a promise and a future, despite its
covenant disobedience and alienation from the Davidic promise. It is not
simply a narrative foil by which the progress of the South might be
assessed.
What would have the cast off readers in exile understood when
the northern kingdom is cast from Yahwehs presence (2 Kgs 17:20)?
It is only because of 2 Kgs 13:2223 that they have been reminded of the
promises to Abraham. By its juxtaposition with 2 Kgs 13:2021 they
have also been reminded of the power of God to raise to life those who
were once cast off.71
In a sophisticated way, the book moves beyond a simple
message of either hope for national restoration or explanation of
destruction. Nor is it hope conditioned on repentance. Rather, with the
other exilic literature, Kings portrays both a certain and complete
destruction according to the curses of the Mosaic covenant, and a sure
hope based theologically in resurrection,72 which occurs historically
through the preservation of a humble and faithful remnant 73 so that the
promises made to Abraham and David may be fulfilled.
CONCLUSIONS
The theology of the book of Kings is underpinned by two promises of
71. There are several resurrections in the book of Kings. It is the narrative placement of
this unit that gives this one its symbolic significance.
72. This is a shared theological theme with Ezekiel (37:114) and with the prophetic
literature more generally. See Donald E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books: The
Death and Resurrection of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 121.
McConville (1 Kings VIII, 79) suggests that the message of Kings takes a different
cue from Deuteronomy concerning the issue of hope for the exiles than do the
prophetic books, but there is much more in common than he suggests.
73. See Zeph 3:1112 and Hab 2:4.
26
God: on the one hand, certain hope for Davids dynasty, and on the other,
certain destruction for disobedience to the Mosaic covenant. The
narrative of Kings explores this tension in order to see how these two
seemingly contradictory promises might be reconciled, and what, if any,
hope might be offered for the first readers of the book in the Babylonian
exile.
The book forbids the conclusion that either of the promises
undoes the other, so there is only one resolution left. The curses must be
enacted for covenant breach, as indeed it had been for the first readers of
the book, which then leaves only hope that the promise might be
fulfilled. Thus, the exile becomes a symbol of hope in itself: that now
Yahweh might begin something new.
The messiah that Kings expects is unlike any of the Davidic
kings in Judahs or Israels history because, despite having abundant
blessing from Yahweh, their kingdoms failed. Rather, the release of
Jehoiachin during exile confirms that Yahweh is able to raise a Davidic
heir even without Davids throne. Israels exilic situation does not
preclude the fulfilment of Yahwehs promise, and so the book
encourages the exiles to hope for the appearance of a righteous,
covenant-keeping king, even from exile, who will inherit the promise to
David.
Likewise, the nationalistic kingdoms of Israel and Judah have
failed, but the ministries of the prophetic figures of the book have shown
that exile is not Yahwehs final word for Israel. The book expects a
remnant who will survive the coming destruction, through whom
Yahwehs new Israel might yet be raised from the dead. But this new
Israel will not look like the power structures of national Israel. Instead,
they will be the widows, the orphans, the humble, and even the Gentiles.
They will be those who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They will be
those who hear the word of Yahweh as it comes through the prophetic
ministry and respond with faith.
To conclude, that hope in the book of Kings is shaped in this
way certainly moves us beyond the interests of the so called
Deuteronomist. Indeed, if it is correct, it may require a reassessment of
some of the proposed literary history of the book, which after all relies
heavily on the presupposition of the books purpose.74 But it does give a
reading of the book that is more closely aligned with the theology of its
contemporary exilic literature, as well as one that plays a definite role in
the canonical shape of Scripture and the flow of the overarching story of
74. Janzen has recently also called for a revision of the sourcecritical hypothesis in
light of his more synchronic reading (The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah, 370).
27
the Bible. The hope is firmly placed in God, for every human king and
institution in the book has failed. Kings becomes a story of the hope that
remains after Israel moves from the nationalistic and glorious roots of
Solomon to the reality of exilea scattered people and a subjugated
king. But such a reality is not antithetical to the purpose of God for
Israel. In fact, it is cogent with Gods overall plan. The book tells the
story of how the kingdom of Israel might move from Solomons
kingdom to something greater than Solomon; to a people who will not
bow the knee to Baal. It tells the story of how Yahweh might yet, even
from exile, raise up a servant king.
[JESOT 3.1 (2014): 2948]
The Soteriological Development of the Arm of the

LORD Motif
MATTHEW R. AKERS
Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
makers@mabts.edu
A quarter of a century ago James Hoffmeier published his

groundbreaking Biblica article The Arm of God Versus the Arm of
Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives. The same year, Manfred Grg
released his study Der starke Arm Pharaos in the Festschrift
honoring Franois Daumas. Both men demonstrated that the OT seizes
Egyptian victory language and applies it to the God of Israel in order
to portray him as the conqueror of Pharaoh. This paper builds upon
these important works, arguing that the OT authors, particularly in the
prophetical period, employed the theme to express several important
theological concepts. The author of this paper explores a number of OT
passages that depict the arm of the LORD as the deliverer of postConquest Israel and the redeemer of the entire world.
KEYWORDS: Deliverance, Soteriology, Theology, Prophets,

Messiah
INTRODUCTION
As OT scholars of the past several centuries have analyzed and
assimilated countless archaeological discoveries, they have directed their
areas of expertise along avenues that previous generations were unable to
travel. Perhaps no branch of OT scholarship has progressed more rapidly
than the study of the Hebrew language. These appreciable advancements
serve the purpose of better illuminating critical concepts such as OT
figures of speech and their theological significance. Once such phrase
that is worthy of examination is the expression the arm of the LORD.1
1. Although the phrase ( arm of the LORD) occurs only a handful of times in
the OT, numerous texts associate the arm with God. In this study, the arm of the
LORD will serve as shorthand for the miscellaneous descriptive terms that the OT
writers applied to God (e.g., holy arm, outstretched arm, powerful arm, etc.).
Also of importance is the phrase the hand of the LORD. While in Exod 6:67 God
30
The first biblical reference to the arm of the LORD appears in

Exod 6:6 in the context of a divine speech that God addressed to Moses.
Previous to this encounter, God had sent Moses and his brother Aaron to
petition Pharaoh so that he might allow the people of Israel to celebrate a
feast dedicated to the LORD in the wilderness (Exod 5:13). When the
ruler of Egypt refused to make this allowance (Exod 5:25), and instead
increased the workload of his slaves (Exod 5:69), the God of Israel
proceeded to punish the Egyptians.
Before striking Egypt with the ten plagues and delivering his
people from slavery, God expressed his intentions to liberate the
Israelites:
Say, therefore, to the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I
will bring you out from under the compulsory servitude of
Egypt, and I will deliver you from their slavery and redeem you
with an outstretched arm and with great punishments. I will also
take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you will
know that I am the LORD your God who brought you out from
under the compulsory servitude of the Egyptians. (Exod 6:6-7)2
This reference to the arm of the LORD serves as the foundation for a
series of little studied theological revelations concerning God. This
article will examine OT passages that develop the phrase
soteriologically.
A SUMMARY OF HOFFMEIERS FINDINGS
In his groundbreaking article The Arm of God Versus the Arm of
Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives, James Hoffmeier was one of the first
scholars to write extensively on the Egyptian foundation of the OT arm
motif.3 He observed that arm iconography was one of the most enduring
images of Egyptian culture, reaching its height during the Eighteenth
Dynasty.
______________________________________________________
promised to redeem his people with his arm, in Exod 7:5 he assured the sons of Israel
that he would punish Egypt with his hand. This study also will consider instances in
which the hand of the LORD appears alongside soteric usages of the arm of the
LORD motif (e.g., Pss 44:13; 98; Isa 59).
2. All Scripture translations are original to the author unless otherwise noted.
3. James K. Hoffmeier, The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus
Narratives, Bib 67 (1986): 37887.
AKERS: Development of the Arm of the Lord Motif
31
The arm of the LORD is not an OT image employed haphazardly;

the phrase is replete with significance that would not be lost on the
original audience. Essentially, the God of the Israelite slaves
appropriated the victory language of the Egyptians and demonstrated that
the terminology rightly belonged to him. When the people of Israel heard
the message that is recorded in Exod 6, they would have understood the
reference to be a declaration of the supremacy of the LORD over the gods
of Egypt as well as the Pharaoh, who considered himself to be divine.
The Egyptians were accustomed to hearing of the mighty deeds that the
arm of their king accomplished, but soon they would realize by means of
the ten plagues that the deeds of the LORD could not be superseded.
On the one hand, Pharaoh and his subjects would understand
Exod 6 and the subsequent mighty acts of the arm of the LORD as
challenges to the king and their gods. On the other hand, the people of
Israel who had sojourned in Egypt for centuries (and subsequently were
familiar with Egyptian religion) would have recognized the expression as
divine warfare. Although at first the slaves refused to listen to Moses on
account of their despondency and cruel bondage (Exod 6:9), they would
begin to believe the message when the arm of the LORD acted with great
signs and wonders, humbling the greatest contemporary power in the
process.
The height of the humiliation occurred when the people of Israel
sang of the defeat of Pharaoh and his army at the Red Sea:
Let me sing to the LORD, for He is greatly exalted;
He has thrown the horse and his rider into the sea . . . .
Who is like You among the gods, LORD?
Who is like You, glorious in holiness,
Honored in praises, performing wonders? (Exod 15:1, 11)
Interestingly, the victory hymn in Exod 15 is similar to the ones
previously sung in honor of the conquered Egyptian king. 4 The arm of
the LORD, therefore, had proven victorious in the military campaign
against Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt as he had promised beforehand
(Exod 12:12). Further, the exodus event would not be the last time that
the OT employs the phrase arm of the LORD, but instead it goes on to
serve as the foundation for an important theological motif.
4. Ibid., 387. Here Hoffmeier captured the irony of Egypts humiliation: What better
way for the exodus traditions to describe Gods victory over Pharaoh, and as a result
his superiority, than to use Hebrew derivations or counterparts to Egyptian expressions
that symbolised Egyptian royal power.
32
A SUMMARY OF GRGS FINDINGS

The same year that Hoffmeier published his findings, Manfred Grgs
article Der starke Arm Pharaos appeared in a Festschrift honoring
Franois Daumas.5 Grg noted that scholars had not given proper
attention to comparative studies that focused on the imagery of Egypt,
the ancient Near East (ANE), and the OT. He desired to help remedy this
oversight by analyzing the phrase the strong arm of Pharaoh because
the terminology exists in Egyptian documents, in Syro-Palestinian
correspondence, and the OT.
Grg first surveyed the examples of this motif in the preConquest Amarna Letters. In his correspondence with the Egyptian royal
court, Jerusalems mayor Abdi-eba referred to the strong arm of the
king [of Egypt] (EA 286.13; cf. EA 287.27; 288.15, 34). Because Grg
saw in these letters a distinctive metaphorical expression, he speculated
that Jerusalem may be the place where the idiom originated.6
Next, Grg considered Gods declaration that he had shattered
the arm of Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Ezek 30:21; cf. vv. 2225). Whereas
the Amarna Letters spoke of Pharaohs strength, the book of Ezekiel
contains what one might consider the result of a gradual modification of
an established word picture. The resulting metaphor reverses the
pharaonic image of power in order to demonstrate that Egypts
militaristic dominance had been broken.
Finally, Grg examined hieroglyphic references to the strong
arm of Pharaoh in writings that pertain to Thutmosis IV, Haremhab, and
Ramses II. Egyptian allusions to the kings mighty arm tend to celebrate
his ability to defeat his enemies. This detail prompted Grg to conclude
that the most likely explanation for the origin of the OT usage of the arm
motif is a cross-pollination of the Egyptian and Canaanite uses of the
metaphor. In other words, while Egypt was responsible for originating
the symbolism, the alteration of the concept to suit Canaans purposes
also left a mark on OT writers.
Although Grg limited his discussion of the OT arm motif to a
single biblical text, his contribution is valuable for two reasons. First, his
article emphasizes the role of comparative linguistic and metaphoric
studies in expanding scholars understanding of the richness of OT
allusions. Second, Grgs research established that arm imagery was a
5. Manfred Grg, Der starke Arm Pharaos: Beobachtungen zum Belegspektrum einer
Metapher in Palstina und gypten,in Hommages Franois Daumas (Montpellier:
Universit de Montpellier, 1986), 32330.
6. Ibid., 326.
33
significant ANE theme, so OT examples of the metaphor deserve more

special attention.
A SELECT SURVEY OF THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT ARM OF THE LORD MOTIF
An examination of the arm motif would be incomplete without
considering how OT authors developed the theme theologically. The OT
uses the arm of the LORD motif to depict God as Creator (Ps 89:1113;
Jer 27:5; 32:17), Deliverer (Pss 44:13; 77:1120; 98:19; Isa 51:48;
52:10; 53:1; 59:121; 63:45, 714), Divine Warrior (Ps 89:510; Isa
30:2733; Isa 51:911), King (Pss 44:48; 89:14, 1929; Isa 40:1011;
Ezek 20:3338), and Judge (Deut 2:1416; Ps 98:9; Isa 51:5; 63:14a,
5b6; Jer 21:5; 27:5). Space limitations prevent a thorough examination
of each of these five theological assertions, so the remainder of this paper
will focus solely on the soteriological development of the arm of the
LORD motif.
The Arm of the LORD as Israels Deliverer
The OT addresses the redemptory role of the arm of the LORD more
often than any other branch of the arm motif. This aspect of the theme is
comprised of two ideas: (1) The role of the arm of the LORD in the
liberation of the Israelites from their enemies; and (2) the role of the arm
of the LORD in the soteric deliverance of both Israelites and Gentiles.
Since the release of the sons of Israel from Egypt already has been
mentioned, it need not be reconsidered here.
Several OT writers employed the image of the exodus from
Egypt as an archetype for victory.7 The typical formula for this aspect of
7. Occasionally, however, the Lords arm and hand (an additional metaphor sometimes
paired with the arm of the LORD) punished his own people rather than delivering them
(e.g., Deut 2:1416; 1 Sam 12:15; Jer 21:5). The reason for the intermittent inversion of
this motif is twofold. First, when Israel acted like the surrounding nations by rebelling
and serving false gods, the Lord reproved his covenant people in much the same
manner that he punished the pagan countries. Second, much as a shepherd used his rod
and staff to defend and discipline his sheep (cf. Ps 23:4), the Lords arm and hand
defended his people when they were under attack and disciplined them when they
strayed from his path. For more information on what some scholars refer to as the
anti-Exodus theme, see W. L. Moran, The End of the Unholy War and the AntiExodus, Bib 44 (1963): 33342; David Rolph Seely, The Image of the Hand of God
in the Exodus Traditions (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1990), 19395;
Matthew R. Akers, The Employment of zeroa as a Messianic Motif with Particular
Emphasis on the Origin of the Concept as Well as its First Usage in Exodus 6:18
(Ph.D. diss., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005), 2526.
34
the motif begins with a summary of the origin of the nation before
expressing confidence that the founder of Israel once more will work in
the present life of Israel as he did at the nations establishment. This
Vergangenheit und . . . gegenwrtige Bekenntnis zur Zuversicht8
structure appears in Pss 44 and 77. The confidence that Israel places in
God appears in the context of community laments that bemoan present
national tragedies. Such a pairing of tragedy and trust is not
contradictory, but petitions God to remedy national disasters through his
arm.
Psalm 44:13
Psalm 44:1 begins with a rehearsal of ancient events that the present
generation has learned from its fathers: God, we heard with our ears,
our fathers recounted to us the deeds that You did in their days, in the
days of old. This statement demonstrates Israels faithfulness to adhere
to Gods command to teach future generations, for the author of Exod
13:1416 and Deut 6:2025 instructs the people that the transmission of
Gods mighty deeds . . . was a religious duty incumbent on all parents.9
The audience, who never experienced such an act of redemption,
bemoans the fact that what they have heard with their ears is tacitly
contrasted with the very different things which they have seen with their
eyes.10
Scholarship is divided on which events are mentioned in Ps 44.
While David C. Mitchell argued that the passage speaks of the Exodus
event,11 Uriel Simon held that the psalm instead celebrates the expulsion
8. T. Hieke, Der Exodus in Psalm 80: Geschichtstopik in den Psalmen, in Studies in

the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL
126; Leuven: Peeters, 1996) 556. An English translation of Hiekes quotation reads:
past . . . and present confession of confidence.
9. J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 150 (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977), 207.
10. Joseph Addison Alexander, The Psalms: Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids,
MI: 1977), 195. This observation of the psalmists present situation is not an accusation
against God, suggesting either an inability to work or an apathetic attitude, but instead
reflects the desire to see Gods arm at work once more.
11. David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in
the Book of Psalms (JSOTSup 252; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 250.
35
of the Canaanites during the conquest.12 The pericope, however, most

likely offers a comprehensive portrait of Gods workings during both the
exodus and the conquest.
The Israelites could credit their birth as a nation not to their vigor
(cf. Ps 44:3[Heb. 4]), but to Gods might: For they did not take
possession of the land with their own sword, nor did their arm save them,
but Your right hand and Your arm and the light of Your face, for You
took pleasure in them. This citation is not merely a quotation from the
Torah. Whereas Exod 6:6 pertains solely to the liberation of the people
of Israel from Egypt,13 the psalmist attributes the favorable outcome of
the conquest to the arm of the LORD as well (Ps 44:3). In the promised
land Gods hand eradicated the inhabitants of Canaan while at the same
time his arm once more delivered his covenant people.
When examined in context, Ps 44:13 serves as the basis by
which Israel beseeches God so that he may graciously again intervene
so powerfully as he had done in the past. 14 Since the arm of the LORD
had rescued their ancestors from servitude in Egypt and firmly planted
them in Canaanite territory, his people could expect a similar work of
deliverance in the present. Thus, Israel gained from der Vergangenheit
neue Hoffnung where none was visible to the naked eye.15
Psalm 77:112016
Several aspects of Ps 77:1120 are noteworthy. First, the psalmist recalls
the inaugural event of Israels history at a time when many felt that the
end of the nation may be near. In Ps 77:1416 (which contains 39
12. Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms from Saadiah Gaon to
Abraham Ibn Ezra (trans. L. J. Schramm; New York: State University of New York
Press, 1991), 60.
13. This statement also is true of every other allusion to the arm of the LORD in the
Torah (Exod 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 15:16; 26:8).
14. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalm 1-59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1988), 447.
15. Hieke, Der Exodus in Psalm 80, 556. The gist of Hiekes quotation is that Israel
gained new hope as they recalled Gods past workings.
16. Readers of the NASB may be surprised to find this passage categorized as an arm
of the LORD text because no mention of Gods arm appears in this translation of Ps 77.
Verse 15 reads You have by Your power redeemed Your people, the sons of Jacob
and Joseph. The word power actually is arm in the Masoretic text, and many other
well-known translations use the word arm in v. 15. E.g., KJV, NJKV, RSV, NRSV,
NIV, TNIV, ESV.
36
percent of the vocabulary found in the victory hymn of Exod 15:11

13),17 Asaph encouraged the nation to place their faith in the God of their
ancestors. If God, through his arm, overcame seemingly impossible
situations in bygone days, he could do so once more.
Second, at the Red Sea God led his people like a flock (Ps
77:20), thus combining the concept of the arm of the LORD with
shepherding imagery.18 Although this theme often is synonymous with
kingship, the terminology also carried the notion of redemption in the
culture of the ANE.19 In effect, the LORD, who is king, ensures this
perpetual deliverance of the covenant nation by means of his arm.
Third, another facet of the text (which occurs only here and in
Obad 18),20 is the pairing of the names Jacob and Joseph (Ps 77:15).
Scholarship has variously interpreted this coupling as (1) an indication of
a northern origin of the psalm,21 (2) an allusion to the fact that both
personages insisted that they be buried in the promised land rather than
Egypt,22 or (3) a link between the patriarchs and the exodus.23
Although Joseph does appear occasionally as a reference to northern
Israel in the prophetic corpus (e.g., Amos 5:6, 15; 6:6),24 J. W. Rogerson
and J. W. McKay correctly maintained that more likely the verse refers
to the redemption of the whole Israelite nation in the exodus25 as
opposed to only a portion of the population.
17. Helen G. Jefferson, Psalm 77, VT 13 (1963): 89.
18. Inherent in this allusion is the portrayal of God leading his people out of Egypt by
means of his arm, much as a shepherd leads his flock with his staff in hand.
19. God, why have You continuously rejected us? Why does Your anger smoke
against the flock of Your pasture? Remember Your congregation, You purchased it
long ago, You redeemed the tribe of Your inheritance. This Mount Zion, You dwelled
on it. (Ps 74:12)
20. Woodrow Michael Kroll, Psalms: The Poetry of Palestine (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1987), 218.
21. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalm 60-150 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1988), 116. Although Kraus mentioned this position as an option, he did not
hold this view of the passage.
22. Derek Kidner, Psalms 73150: A Commentary of Books III-V of the Psalms
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975), 280.
23. John S. Kselman, Psalm 77 and the Book of Exodus, JANES 15 (1983): 52.
24. A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (NCB 2; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1992), 560.
25. Rogerson and McKay, Psalms 51100, 138.
37
The Arm of the LORD as Deliverer

Physical deliverance was always a major concern of the Israelites, but the
OT looks forward to a complete, spiritual redemption as well. Not only
did the arm of the LORD birth the nation and continue to sustain it
throughout the centuries, the arm also proved to be the means by which
the people might obtain eternal hope. Israels redemption from Egypt,
therefore, served as the model for the deliverance that Gods people
anticipated.
Psalm 98
Scholars often classify Psalm 98 as a Divine Warrior victory song.26
Aspects of this motif certainly are present in the passage, particularly in
the reference to Gods punitive hand working in conjunction with his
emancipatory arm to secure victory (Ps 98:1). Also present in the text are
elements that emphasize divine kingship.27 The main thrust of the psalm,
however, is Gods redemption as evidenced by the triple usage of
salvation ( )in verses 13. Unlike Pss 44 and 77, which begin
with laments, the author of Ps 98 immediately displays eine uerung
der Freude.28
The passage, which serves as the prophetic counterpart of Isa
52:710,29 contains the only title to be found among Pss 9399. Since the
psalmist calls upon the people to sing a new song, it is reasonable to
suggest that the presence of this title in Ps 98 likely serves to emphasize
the new start (for a song) mentioned within the psalm itself.30 The
26. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), 524. Tate
accurately classifies Ps. 98 as a soteric hymn of triumph that clearly emphasizes the
dual purposes of the LORDs saving works, which have revealed his righteousness to
the nations and his enduring love and faithfulness toward his own people in Israel.
27. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992), 86.
28. B. Maarsingh, Das Schwertlied in Ez. 21:1322 und das Erra-Gedicht, in Ezekiel
and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (ed. J. Lust;
BETL 74; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 351. The phrase eine uerung
der Freude means a statement of joy.
29. James Luther Mays, Psalms in Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching
and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 313.
30. David M. Howard Jr., A Contextual Reading of Psalms 9094, in The Shape and
Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J. Clinton McCann; JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993),
120.
38
phrase ( new song), which occurs only seven times in the OT,31
always finds association with the theme of deliverance.32 The new
song apparently serves the purpose of celebrating the accomplishment
of the revelation of Gods salvation to the entire earth.33
Psalm 98:1 explains the reason why it is appropriate for the
audience to sing a new song. The Israelites could rejoice because of
Gods ( marvelous works). Kidner observed that the verb
translated extraordinary (cf. Jer 32:17) is more than a superlative, but a
way in which to formulate the miraculous interventions of God.34 In
short, the works that the arm of the LORD performs are incomparable.
The word salvation is paralleled with Gods extraordinary
deeds in Ps 98:1, indicating that redemption indeed is the focus of this
pericope. Unlike Pss 44 and 77, though, Ps 98 is not a description of
nationalistic deliverance. Rather, the text declares that all the ends of
the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Ps 98:3), thus affirming
the psalms soteric focus. Consequently, verse 1 attributes the
consummation of Gods soteriological plan for Israel and the Gentile
nations to the arm of the LORD.
A Note on the Significance of Arm Imagery in Isa 4055
The theme of a new exodus permeates Isa 4055.35 Prior to this
segment of the book, the prophet Isaiah focuses on imminent judgment
(Isa 139), but after this he turns his attention to the future hope that the
Lord would effect. By means of his Messiah, God will bring about a
spiritual liberation that will rival the deliverance of the sons of Israel
from Egypt. The four Servant Songs appear within the context of Isa 40
55,36 but the arm of the LORD also figures prominently within this
section.
31. Tremper Longman III, Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song, JETS 27
(1984): 269. The phrase appears in Pss 33:3; 40:3(4); 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1;
Isa 42:10.
32. Ibid.
33. Ellen F. Davis, Psalm 98, Int 46 (1992): 172.
34. Kidner, Psalms 73150, 352.
35. Rikki E. Watts, Isaiahs New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997),
7984.
36. Isaiah 42:14; 49:16; 50:49; 52:1353:12.
39
Isa 4055 contains a total of 26 rhetorical questions.37

Interestingly, the questions begin directly after a reference to the arm of
the LORD in Isa 40:11 and terminate with another reference to the arm of
the LORD in the final Servant Song (Isa 53:1). The thrust of this stylistic
device is that the unveiling of the messianic Servant provides the answer
to all of the prophets inquiries in Isa 4053. Given this fact, an
understanding of the soteric usages of the arm of the LORD in the book of
Isaiah is necessary in order to understand the prophetic aspect of the
corpus correctly.38
Isaiah 51:48
In Isa 51:13 the prophet introduces the theme of 51:48 by referring to
the birth pains of Sarah (v. 2) as well as to a future time when the deserts
of Zion would be made fertile like the garden of Eden (v. 3). Gerald
Janzen perceived that the birth of Isaac often is tied to Zionic themes of
fertility,39 so the pairing of these two topics is fitting. These twin images
of fruitfulness prefigure the soteric deliverance of the arm of the LORD.
Isaiah 51:4 begins by announcing that a law ( )would go
forth from God. The verse parallels with , which the LORD
would set for a light of the peoples. Although judgment is the
general translation of , the idea in this context is deliverance or
justice.40 The purpose for this rendering is threefold.
First, the term light is an OT metaphor for salvation.41 Second,
the number of soteric terms in Isa 51:48 validates this observation.
Righteousness appears in four consecutive verses (vv. 58), while
salvation occurs three times (vv. 5, 6, 8). Third, Isa 51:111 is chiastic,
37. Kenneth J. Kuntz, Rhetorical Questions in Deutero-Isaiah, in Writing and
Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. Craig C. Broyles
and Craig A. Evans; VTSup70.1; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 126. Kuntz provided a beneficial
list of all passage between Isa 40:12 and 53:1 which employ interrogative texts: Isa
40:1214, 18, 21, 25, 28; 41:2, 4, 26; 42:19, 24; 43:13; 44:78; 45:9, 11, 21; 46:5;
48:14; 49:15, 24; 50:12, 9; and 53:1.
38. Since the reference in Isa 40:1011focuses on the kingly qualities of the arm of the
LORD, the author will not elaborate on the text within the confines of this paper.
39. Gerald J. Janzen, Rivers in the Desert of Abraham and Sarah and Zion (Isaiah
51:13), HAR 10 (1986): 139.
40. D. W. van Winkle,The Relationship of the Nations of Yahweh and to Israel in
Isaiah 4055, VT 35 (1985): 457.
41. Ibid., 453.
40
and 51:5bc, replete with salvific overtones, is the center of the

pericope.42 For these reasons, and due to its coupling with salvation,
righteousness means here salvation, or deliverance.43
According to Isa 51:5, deliverance emanates from the arm of the
LORD: The coastlands will wait for Me, even for My arm will they
wait. Whereas only Israel benefited from the nationalistic deliverance
accomplished by Gods arm, this new redemption would extend to every
point of the compass (Isa 51:4). To be sure, verse 5 contends that the arm
also would judge the peoples, but this tribunal appears to be limited
only to those who reject Gods benevolence.
In Isa 51:68, the prophet underscores the eternal nature of this
nation-encompassing redemption. At some point the heavens will be
dissipated like smoke, and the earth will wear out like a garment and
those who dwell on it will die like gnats (v. 6), but Gods salvation
never would wane. Likewise, the works of men would deteriorate, but
Gods arm would ensure that spiritual liberation would last to all
generations (v. 8).
J. Ridderbos associated the redeemer of Isa 51:48 with Cyrus44
since earlier chapters in Isaiah name him as Gods servant. No passage in
Isaiah, however, ever calls Cyrus the arm of the LORD, for the expression
always serves as una designacin de la persona divina.45 Rather, Cyrus
the messiah prefigures the work of the Messiah, whose mission would be
to deliver the world from the clutches of sin, just as Cyrus was to
deliver the Israelites from the clutches of Babylon.46
42. Frederick C. Holmgren, Chiastic Structure in Isaiah 51:511, VT 19 (1969): 197

98.
43. John N. Oswalt, Righteousness in Isaiah: Chapters 5566, in Writing and
and Craig A. Evans; VTSup70.1; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 186.
44. J. Ridderbos, Isaiah (trans. J. Vriend; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 455.
45. Enrique Farfan Navarro, El Desierto Transformado: Una Imagen Deuteroisaiana
de Regeneracin (AnBib 130; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1992), 188.
Navarros quotation notes that the arm of the LORD always serves as a designation
for a divine [rather than a merely human] person.
46. John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 4066 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1980), 336.
41
Isaiah 52:10
Isaiah 52:10 belongs to an anticipatory poem (vv. 710) that bears much
in common with Ps 98.47 The passage speaks of a messenger qui
sadresse la population de Jrusalem pour lui annoncer le salut
imminent apport par Dieu.48 The Qumran community seems to have
regarded this herald of Isa 52:7 . . . [as] a messianic figure49 (cf.
11QMelch).
The first verse of the pericope (v. 7) delineates two aspects of the
message. First, the verse connects the concept of ( good news),
with peace. Second, appears once more in v. 7 alongside the
adjective good, which intensifies the force of the word. The result is
that aboundingly joyous news flows from the lips of the herald. In the
LXX , the NT word for gospel, is the translation of
because the terms are semantic cognates.
The watchmen appear for the first time in Isaiah in verse 8,
jubilantly lifting up their voices because they will see with their own
eyes the restoration of Zion. Not only will Jerusalem experience
redemption (v. 9), for all the nations will see the salvation of God (v.
10). According to Isa 51:10, the means by which God will manifest this
salvation is through the baring of his holy arm. Many scholars assume
that this intriguing phrase signifies doing battle, for in battle the soldier
threw back his cloak from his right arm50 for the purpose of us[ing] his
sword.51 Military activity, however, is not the purpose of Isa 52:10.
The baring of the arm of the LORD to the nations is soteric rather
than militaristic because warrior language is absent from vv. 710. The
sense of the passage, further, is that Gods redemption would not be
limited to the descendants of Jacob. J. Ross Wagner said:
47. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of the Hidden Structure, in Writing and

and Craig A. Evans; VTSup70.1; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 151.
48. Phillippe de Robert, Esaie 52:112, ETR 52 (1977): 537. De Roberts quotation
makes reference to a messenger who addresses the population of Jerusalem in order to
announce the imminent salvation provided by God.
49. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Other Ancient Literature (ABR; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 11. The Qumran
Community added ( Messiah) to their rendering of Isa 52:7 in 11QMelch.
50. Ridderbos, Isaiah, 466.
51. R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 4066 (NCB; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1975), 168.
42
Isaiah 52:10 functions both as a summary of the first major

section of Isaiah 5155 (51:152:12) and as a pivotal link with
the following section (52:1353:12). The LXX reads, And the
Lord will reveal () his holy arm before all the
Gentiles, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of
God. The Arm of the LORD has been an important term for
Gods saving activity [in Isa 40:1011; 51:5, 9]. . . . The
revelation of Gods saving work to the Gentiles and to the ends
of the earth in 52:10 restates the important theme of 51:45 that
the Gentiles and the islands will hope in the arm of the Lord.
The reference to the Gentiles also points back to the previous
mention of Gentiles in 52:5, because of you my name
continually is blasphemed among the Gentiles. In 52:10, the
Gentiles now see Gods vindication of his name as he saves his
people. It also points ahead to the statement that many Gentiles
will marvel at the Lords Servant (52:15) and that proselytes
will be included among the people of God.52
Isaiah 52:10, therefore, hearkens back to Gods promise to Abraham in
Gen 22:18.53
A careful reading of Isa 49:6 confirms that the arm of the LORD
is not an abstract concept, but a messianic title: [God] says, It is too
small a thing for You to be My Servant in order to raise up the tribes of
Jacob and to cause the preserved of Israel to return; I will also make You
a light to the nations in order to be My salvation to the end of the earth.
Isaiah 49:1 supports this connection, for the Servant addresses the
islands and the peoples from afar, while God bares his arm to all
the nations and all the ends of the earth in 52:10. The Arm of the
LORD, then, becomes an alternate title for the messianic Servant of the
LORD.
A difference does surface, however, when one compares Isa 49
and 52. Whereas previously the Servant explained, In the shadow of His
hand [God] has hidden Me (Isa 49:2), the prophet declares in 52:10 that
in the future God would reveal the Arm of the LORD to the entire world.
52. J. Ross Wagner, The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation
of Pauls Use of Isaiah 5155 in Romans, in Jesus and the Suffering Servant (ed.
William H. Bellinger Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 217
18.
53. By means of your seed all of the nations will be blessed, because you obeyed My
voice (Gen 22:18). Both the apostles Peter (Acts 3:2526) and Paul (Gal 3:16)
recognized Abrahams seed as none other than Christ.
43
In other words, the one the LORD had hidden in past times ultimately
would be revealed as Gods Messiah.
For this reason, both Isa 49:13 and 52:9 contain a command to
rejoice. In 49:13 the heavens, earth, and mountains break into joy
because Gods people are comforted, while in 52:89 the waste places
of Jerusalem celebrate the fact that God has redeemed Jerusalem.
According to Isa 49, therefore, the servant himself will be the Lords
salvation to the ends of the earth,54 an attribute applied to the arm of the
LORD in Isa 52:10. Just as one rolls up his sleeve in order to reveal his
bare arm, God would reveal his Messiah in due time.
Isaiah 53:1
In order to appreciate the full significance of Isa 53:1, one must
remember the overarching message of chapters 4952: God has
promised to deliver his people from their alienation from him so that they
can indeed become his servants to the world. Now [in Isa 52:1353:12]
he tells the means by which he proposes to effect that deliverance.55
This redemption is made possible through the Servant of God.
In Isa 52:13 God claims the Servant as his own, and this
preparatory statement introduces a pericope that describes aspects of
both the Servants ministry and the response of those who witness his
work. The pronouns he, his, and him appear regularly through
52:1315,56 directing the reader back to their antecedent, the Servant. In
this section of Isaiah, the enigmatic nature of this messianic figure once
again comes to the attention of the audience.
The prophet declares in verse 15 that a mystery will be revealed
to the nations that will cause the kings to shut their mouths. This theme
appeared earlier in Isaiah in passages such as 49:2 as well as 50:6, in
which images of the servant are linked with the themes of hiddenness
54. E. R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiahs Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An
Exegetical and Theological Study (CBET 23; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 277.
55. Oswalt, Isaiah 4066, 382.
56. According to the pericope: (1) He will be exalted and lifted up; (2) His
appearance was disfigured more than any man; (3) His form [was disfigured] more
than the sons of man; (4) He will sprinkle many nations; and (5) Kings will shut
their mouths because of Him. The prophet Isaiah employed multiple masculine
pronouns throughout this section so that his audience immediately would realize that he
was continuing his discussion regarding the Servant. This deliberate device ensured
that there would be no question that Isa 53 refers to the kingly, yet suffering Messiah
whom the LORD promised to send in order to provide atonement for the peoples sin.
44
and seeing.57 The verse at hand explains that the Arm of the LORD is the
revelation to be disclosed. No masculine pronouns appear in 53:1
because the Arm of the LORD is substituted for the pronoun him,58 but
thereafter pronouns occur with great frequency once more (vv. 212).
This stylistic element indicates afresh that the Arm of the LORD is Gods
Servant, and his mission is the soteric redemption of Jews and Gentiles
alike.
The implication, then, is that the message of Isa 52:712 is put
into effect in 53:1.59 David J. A. Clines rightly noted that verse 1b, like
verse 1a, contains a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer.60
This stylistic feature indicates that not only must the messianic Arm of
the LORD be revealed, but that he also would be disclosed in an
unexpected way that would startle observers.61
The surprise of the audience stems from two factors. The
Israelites, first, were cognizant that the arm of the LORD was the
instrument by which God expressed his militaristic might. The working
of Gods arm against the Egyptians at the Red Sea (e.g., Exod 15:16;
Deut 4:34; 5:15) had left a lasting impression on the people of God.
57. R. P. Carroll, Blindsight and the Vision Thing, in Writing and Reading the Scroll
of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A.
Evans; VTSup70.1; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 88.
58. The word is a feminine noun, but the gender of the term does not mean that the
arm is feminine. In languages such as Hebrew, the gender of the noun is not always a
case of masculinity or femininity: It is important to understand that feminine nouns
(grammatical gender) do not refer only to feminine things (natural gender) or masculine
nouns only to masculine things. . . . What the gender of a Hebrew noun indicates is the
pattern of inflection it will usually follow. Gary D. Pratico and Miles van Pelt, Basics
of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 29. is a good
example of this pattern, for although it is feminine in Hebrew, its Greek equivalent
() is masculine. The Bible recognizes both and (cf. John 12:38) as
messianic, demonstrating that possesses a grammatical rather than a natural gender.
59. N. T. Wright, The Servant and Jesus: The Relevance of the Colloquy for the
Current Quest for Jesus, in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian
Origins (ed. William H. Bellinger Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity,
1998), 293. The arm of [the LORD] . . . is revealed according to Isa, 53:1, in and
through the work of [his] Servant.
60. David J. A. Clines, I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53
(JSOTSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1976), 15.
61. The fulfillment of this prophecy appears in John 12:3739a: But though He had
performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to
fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: LORD, who has believed our
report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For this reason they
could not believe. . . . (NASB)
45
Second, in chapters previous to Isa 51:48 the prophet employs the arm
as the conqueror of Israels enemies.62 To Israels astonishment,
therefore, the Arm of the LORD would [not] rend the heathen,63 but
would seek to redeem them (cf. Isa 52:1053:15).
Isaiah 59
The first section of Isa 59 begins with a charge against Gods people (Isa
59:18). Isaiah explains that their sundry problems did not stem from any
failure on Gods partthe LORDs hand was not short when it came to
deliverance (Isa 59:1). Rather, the peoples hands were defiled with
blood and their fingers with iniquity (Isa 59:3). The prophet Isaiah then
numbers himself among the guilty (vv. 911) by employing the pronoun
we. After the confession of national sin (v. 12), Isaiah describes the
situation in which the people find themselves because of their iniquity
(vv. 1315a): The absence of justice . . . gives evidence of the
completeness of the breach between Israel and God.64
In the following section (vv. 15b16) the text declares that Gods
arm delivered salvation to Him, and [His arms] own righteousness
upheld Him (v. 16b). Odil Hannes Steck observed that die
eschatologische Wende Jahwes unwiderstehlich schnell kommtman
beachte schon die prteritale Formulierung der Heilsinitiative Jahwes.65
The preterite tense of the verbs suggests that at the point at which the
prophet wrote the chapter that God already had begun to take the
initiative in acting to bring about redemption.
In Isa 59:1719 the prophet described the ramification of Gods
work in the world, emphasizing that it would be done with exact
justice.66 Further, Gods covenant with Israel is the heart of Isa 59:20
62. In Isa 30:30 the LORD strikes at Assyria with his arm; the target at which God
directs his arm in Isa 48:14 is the Chaldeans.
63. George A. F. Knight, Servant Theology: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40
55 (ITC; Edinburgh: Handsel, 1984), 169.
64. Daniel Kendall, The Use of Mispat in Isaiah 59, ZAW 96 (1984): 399.
65. Odil Hannes Steck, Jahwes Feinde in Jesaja 59, BN 36 (1987): 54. An English
translation of Stecks quotation reads: The eschatological turn of Yahweh comes
irresistibly fastnote already the preterite formulation of Yahwehs salvation
initiative.
66. J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 369.
46
21. This discussion anticipates the new covenant that Jeremiah and
Ezekiel would foretell a century later.67
Isaiah 59 functions in much the same way as chapter 53, which
also deals with the concepts of guilt and forgiveness. Oswalt explained:
Here, as in Isa 53, God must intervene on his peoples behalf. There,
they were helpless before the guilt and alienation that their sin produced,
and Gods arm intervened on their behalf, submitting to the death that
was rightfully theirs and ours.68 The authors of Sanhedrin 98a counted
Isa 59:16 as a prophecy that would find fulfillment at the advent of the
Messiah69 because they understood the Arm of the LORD to be the
righteous messianic figure that God would send at the end of time.
The point of the passage is not to suggest that salvation had to
be postponed until such time as God chose to intervene on behalf of
those who turned to him,70 but that humans are incapable of
manufacturing the salvation that they so desperately need.71 This
theological point is demonstrated by the past tense of the verbs in Isa
59:1617, one of which asserts that God could find no human to
intercede.72 For this reason the LORD purposed that his own arm would
stand in the gap between his righteousness and mankinds wickedness.
Although the triumph of the Arm of the LORD had not yet transpired
when the prophet composed the chapter, the past tense of ( the
[arm] brought victory) in v. 16 serves the purpose of express[ing] what
the Lord has determined upon.73 The redemption was as good as
finished in the mind of God.
67. John C. Whitcomb, Christs Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel, GTJ 6
(1985): 205.
68. Oswalt, Isaiah 4066, 528.
69. Rikki E. Watts, Jesus Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45: A Crux Revisited, in
Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. William H.
Bellinger Jr., and William R. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 147.
70. Robert P. Carroll, Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition, ZAW 94
(1982): 56.
71. Kendall, The Use of Mispat in Isaiah 59, 399.
72. See Victor P. Hamilton, TWOT II, 715. Of the forty-four times that occurs
in the OT, four of these occurrences appear in the hipil stem, denoting the act of
intercession. Two of these instances (Isa 53:12; 59:16) depict the Arm of the LORD as
interceding for transgressors, a function which the NT attributes to Christ (cf. Rom
8:34; Heb 7:25).
73. Motyer, Isaiah, 368.
47
The chapter reveals another important quality of the arm of the

LORD. Righteousness is a major factor in the passage,74 occurring five
times (Isa 59:4, 9, 14, 16, 17). In one instance the term is parallel with
the arm of the LORD (cf. Isa 59:16) in order to contrast Gods righteous
arm with unrighteous humanity. The chapter further intimates that
somehow the righteousness of the Arm of the LORD would cancel out the
iniquities of mankind, for a Redeemer (, cf. Exod 6:6) would come
to Zion, and to those who would turn from transgression in Jacob (Isa
59:20).
Isaiah 63:45, 714
Isaiah 63:16 undoubtedly is related to Isaiah 59:1517 as evidenced by
the strong connections of vocabulary between [the two].75 Whereas the
declaration of 59:1517a sprang from the lips of the prophet, 63:48
records a direct address made by God. The chapter reinforces the
importance of the previous text as well as the part that Gods arm plays
in soteric redemption.
Although Isa 63 begins with a reference to the vengeance of God
(v. 4), the focus of verses 45, 714 is soteric. God searched for a
redeemer among the people of the earth who could bring salvation and
thus satisfy his vengeance, but was astonished that no one could fill the
position (v. 5b). Verses 714 cite the exodus redemption, as well as the
peoples rebellion, in order to remind the audience that God did not work
on their behalf because of Israels righteousness, but because of His
compassion (v. 7). In both the past and the future, the Arm of the LORD
emerges as the solitary provision of a just salvation because
redemption could be secured by no other means.76
CONCLUSION
The first part of our study demonstrated that Exod 6:18 is of primary
importance for a number of reasons. Not only does the pericope provide
the blueprint for the LORDs future dealings with Israel, Exod 6:6 is the
74. John W. Olley, Righteousness, The Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study
(SCS 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 72.
75. P. A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and
Authorship of Isaiah 5666 (VTSup 62; Leiden: Brill 1995), 124.
76. Robert H. OConnell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of
Isaiah (JSOTSup 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 226.
48
first instance in which the OT associates the word arm with God. In
this context, the arm of the LORD delivers and redeems the people of
Israel. Since this exact formula appears at least 124 times in the Hebrew
text, and the phrase arm of the LORD occurs in numerous passages, one
must regard the theme as one of the key OT theological motifs.
The final part of the study examined soteriological texts from the
prophetic era that make use of arm of the LORD terminology. The
liberation of the people of Israel from Egypt by means of Gods arm
served as a guarantee of their continued national deliverance in the postConquest era. Furthermore, the idea of physical deliverance provided the
underpinning for the prophets discussion of soteriological deliverance.
Interestingly, a number of texts in the book of Isaiah identified the Arm
of the LORD as none other than the LORDs anointed Servant and hence
function as a messianic appellation.
This theological examination of the development of the arm of
the LORD motif has not exhausted the theme. Space does not allow for an
analysis of the arm as Creator, Divine Warrior, King, and Judge. For the
time being, the contribution of these important texts to the arm of the
LORD motif must remain the purview of a future study.
[JESOT 3.1 (2014): 4976]
MAKING SENSE OF MELCHIZEDEK (GENESIS 14:1820)

SILVIU TATU
Institutul Teologic Penticostal (Bucureti, Romnia)
silviuntatu@gmail.com
Biblical criticism has debated for the last two centuries whether or not
to include the Melchizedek episode (Gen 14:1820) with the other
incidents of the story in Gen 14. This article makes the case for the
early integration of Melchizedeks episode in the narrative concerning
Abram recovering Lot and his properties and in the Abraham narrative
cycle as a whole. In order to achieve that, several general issues had to
be addressed: the integrity of the text itself with its syntactic
relationships, literary genre and plot. An investigation of some
particular issues follows: Melchizedeks name, title, and actions, as
well as assessing how well they fit the patriarchal context and the
original plot. Since the debate is complex and multi-layered, various
tools were employed: Hebrew grammar and syntax, form criticism,
narrative criticism, and History of Religions. We found that, as it
stands, Gen 14:1820 is too well integrated in the story of Abraham
and the fabric of its own world to need political agendas motivating its
late addition as various source theories claim.
KEYWORDS:
Melchizedek, Genesis 14, Abram and

Melchizedek, narrative criticism, form criticism, Canaanite
priesthood, Story of Abraham
INTRODUCTION
Critical scholars deny the place of Gen 14:1820 within the larger
context of chapter 14 on various grounds. The abrupt appearance of
Melchizedek in the story of Abraham, among other things, triggered
objections to accepting this fragment as part of the original script.
Although Ps 110:4 and Heb 5:6, 10; 6:4; 7:117 explore Melchizedek
from a theological viewpoint in terms of a priesthood superior to that of
Levi, it does not help to clarify his peculiarity. For this reason
Melchizedek has drawn a lot of attention among interpreters, despite the
fact that he is a transitory character in the patriarchal narratives. The
variety of interpretations he has received throughout the centuries stand
50
as proof of the extent of interest Melchizedek has generated. Some have

identified him with the patriarch Shem,1 while Philo found room both for
a literal interpretation of Melchizedek as a human figure and a non-literal
interpretation of Melchizedek as the Logos.2 Jerome followed Hebrews
in preferring to see the Logos in the person of Melchizedek.3 In
Qumranic and Gnostic literature he was seen as an angelic figure.4
Similarly, Rabbi Isaac identifies one of the four blacksmiths in Zechariah
with Melchizedek.5 More recently, some scholars have denied his
historicity altogether, taking Melchizedek as only a mythical figure.6
This article assesses the details that Gen 14 offers about
Melchizedek, investigates the solutions currently expressed in the debate,
and proposes an integrative explanation of this character in the context of
comparative literature, utilizing the tools of literary criticism. Once a
resolution is reached, its implications can be drawn both in dating the
text and in establishing the context of its writing, as well as in its
relationship with the canonical literature, particularly with Ps 110 and
1. Rabbi Ishmael quoted in the Babylonian Talmud b. Nedarim 32b; Epiphanius, cited
by Ephrem the Syrian in Commentary on Genesis 11.2, claimed that the Samaritans
saw this connection as well. For the polemic context that might have generated Rabbi
Ishmaels assertion, see J.J. Petuchowski, The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek,
HUCA 28 (1957): 12736.
2. Philo, Leg., 3.7982.
3. Jerome, Epistle LXIII, Heb 5:510, 7:13.
4. Qumranic texts include 11Q13, 11Q17, 4Q401, 2 En.. 71:2, and relevant Gnostic
texts from Nag Hammadi such as Melchizedek, Pistis Sophia, fragment 52 found at
Deir El-Balaizah. For an evaluation of the interpretation of Melchizedek in Gnostic
literature, see F. L. Horton, Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of
the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 13152; B. A. Pearson, Gnosticism,
Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (SAC; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 10823;
Anders Aschim, Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14?
SBL Seminar Papers 35 (1996): 24358; James R. Davila, Melchizedek, Michael, and
War in Heaven, SBL 1996 Seminar Papers 35 (1996): 25972.
5. The other three were Elijah, Messiah, and the war priest. See James Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was At the Start of the Common Era
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 27693.
6. John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1975), 296308; M. Bodinger, Lnigme de Melkisdeq, Revue de
lhistoire de Religions 211 (1994): 299ff.; T. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the
Patriarchal Narrative: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 33; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1974), 18790.
TATU: Making Sense of Melchizedek
51
Heb 7. In other words, the topic has reverberations in the fields of

exegesis, hermeneutics, and the history of the text, though these
implications are not the concern of the current article.
We start off by displaying the text and discussing its syntactic
relationships. The following investigation of the literary genre and the
narratives plot will help to assess the clues that we can find to better
integrate the text into the larger context of Gen 14. Finally, we will turn
to Melchizedeks name, title, and actions to determine how well they fit
the patriarchal context and the original plot.
THE TEXT

18
(b)
19 (a)
(b)
(c)
20
(a) Melchizedek, king of Shalem,
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
brought bread and wine.

He was a priest of El-Elyon.
He blessed him
and said,
May Abram be blessed by ElElyon,
The Maker of heaven and earth.
May El-Elyon be blessed.
He delivered your enemies into
your hands.
He gave him a tenth of
everything.
The layout above highlights the clauses and the relationships

between them. Thus, to the traditional verse number some lowercase
letters have been added to divide each verse into its corresponding
clauses (a, b, c, d). Clauses that are not part of the main narrative line,
such as direct description (v. 18b) and direct speech (vv. 19c20b) are
indented. Despite its many contradictory interpretations, the text under
scrutiny displays a clear textual reception. There are no manuscripts to
suggest a variant, although there have been speculative suggestions to
emend the text.
THE TEXTURE
The passage displays two types of literary forms: narrative and nonnarrative. This delimitation is made plain mainly by means of verbal
forms and parallelism of thought. Of the eight clauses in the text, five
have a finite verb, but only four of these are part of the storyline (three
wayyiqtols [19a, 19b, 20c] and a qatal integrated in a waw-x-qatal
52
construction [18a]). The other one (20b) is integrated in the poetic lines
of the benediction. Clause 18b is a verbless identification clause. The
non-narrative text is announced properly as direct speech by means of a
quotative frame consisting of two meta-pragmatic verbs deriving from
the roots and ( 19a, 19b). Its lines are organized according to the
principles of correspondence common with poetical parallelism of
thought. In this case the repetition of the verb (qal passive participle ,
19c, 20a) and the name of God (El-Elyon, 19c, 20a) further support the
parallelism.
Horton thinks that the poetic structure of the double benediction
is not perfect due to its inexact parallelism.7 But this could be alternative
parallelism, as Gray proposed earlier,8 or an ABAC quatrain as Watson
more recently defined it.9 Due to the repeated material, lines A (19c) and
A (20a) are almost identical with the exception of the name Abram
which is missing in A and the lamed fronting the name of God in line A.
Examples of verses with alternative parallelism can be found among
those generally accepted as ancient Hebrew poetry (Exod 15:6, 16b; Judg
5:26b with a second reconstructed Sisera).
GATTUNG
In terms of Gattung, suggestions vary from cultic saying,10 ancient
chant,11 blessing,12 Midrash on Ps 110:4,13 to liturgical doxology.14
7. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 16.
8. G. B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the
Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1972), 6264.
9. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup
26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 18587.
10. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwells, 1965),
75.
11. A. Causse, Les plus vieux chants de la Bible (Etudes dhistoire et de philosophie
religieuses publiees par la faculte de theologie protestante de luniversite de Strasbourg
14; Paris: Alcan, 1926), 18.
12. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1910), 269
13. H. H. Rowley, Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps 110), in Festschrift fr
Alfred Bertholet (ed. Walter Baumgartner, et. al.; Tbingen: Mohr, 1950), 461.
53
Mitchell includes this blessing in the category of benedictions of praise

and congratulations among other optative benedictions uttered by
humans for their fellow humans.15
Among the word roots used to express blessing/cursing, the root
is more frequent in the OT, Hebrew inscriptions, and manuscripts
than all the other roots combined.16 Three of the occurrences are found in
Gen 14:1820 alone. Benedictions are optative utterances by which
humans call upon God to bless a person, and the words have nothing
magic in them.17 Aitken too concludes his study on the verb saying
that when it has both a human subject and a human object, it denotes the
expressing of the favour conferred on the person by God.18
Melchizedeks words of blessing affirm that God will continue to bless
Abram, as he did when he was on his side in war.19
Both form and content qualify the utterance in Gen 14:1820 as
a blessing. It is obvious that Melchizedeks blessing has two parts, one
addressed to Abram (19cd), the other to God (20ab). They are better
analyzed as distinct blessings. However, is such a literary form located
closer to the more transparent end of the literary spectrum (narrative) or
closer to its opaque end (poetry)? In order to reach a final conclusion,
several texts must first be surveyed.
Deborahs praise for Jael in Judg 5:24 comes closest to the first
part of Melchizedeks blessing (19cd). In Judg 5 (arguably one of the
oldest poems in the Bible) the verb form is different (pual imperfect
instead of passive participle), the verse comprises three poetic lines,
instead of two, and the name of God is not invoked. The feature they
share, though, is the second line expanding on the identity of the
______________________________________________________
14. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 302.
15. C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK to Bless in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 11518.
16. Computing Aitkens statistics for each verb and noun from the same root, see J. K.
Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (ANE Studies
Supplement 23; Louvain: Peeters, 2007).
17. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 16869.
18. Aitken, Semantics, 116. Since in Rabbinic Hebrew, and even in some Biblical
Hebrew texts, it can also mean curse when it has God as an object, it can be deduced
that this is a late development. See 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; Prov 30:11, possibly
Deut 33:11, Pss 10:3; 62:5; 109:28; Job 2:5, 9 (Aitken, Semantics, 114).
19. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK, 116.
54
character mentioned. Note that the poet of Judg 5 recalls the first line by
repeating it almost identically in the third line (a b c // c // b d a).

(Gen 14:19b)

(Judg 5:24)
The same verb root is identified in two fragmentary blessings

found on jars unearthed in the remains of the caravanserai from Kuntillet
Ajrud (8th cent. B.C.). The inscription on the first one reads, w . . .
brkt.tkm / lyhwh.smrn.wlsrth, meaning I bless you before Yahweh of
Samaria and his Asherah. Although the verb is finite, notice the
preposition lamed preceding the divine name. Another blessing found on
the second jar reads, []mr / mryw / mr l.dn[y] / hslm.t/brktk.l[y] /
hwh tmn / wlsrth.yb / rk.wysmrk / wyhym.d[n] / y[ . . . / k [ . . . This
means, Thus says Amaryau: Say to my lord: Is it well with you? I bless
you before Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah. May He bless you and
keep you and be with my lord . . . Again, the name of the deity invoked
as giver of the blessing is preceded by a lamed. The third blessing is too
fragmentary for our current purposes.20
The blessing found in Ps 115:15 is closer to Gen 14:19cd, both
in form and content, although it also displays several original features:
the recipient is plural, the verb that describes God is not , and
replaces as the name of God. The more recent poem did not
employ the archaic elements with good reason.

(Gen 14:19b)

(Ps 115:15)
Blessing God as an expression of joyous satisfaction for Gods

acts on behalf of the believer can be found not only in Genesis, but in
other biblical texts as well. Noahs blessing for Shem (Gen 9:26) is
forged on an unusual pattern, having the second line cast out with a
jussive.21 Thus, the second line does not recall past deeds of God in
20. Othmar Keel and Cristoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in
Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 22527.
21. Horton mentioned Gen 9:26 but did not expand on it (The Melchizedek Tradition,
117).
55
relation to his enemies, as in Gen 14, but is optative about future dealings
with them. A more concise formula is preferred in greetings (cf. 1 Sam
15:13).

(Gen 14:20)

(Gen 9:26)
Other blessings make use of the relative pronoun as in Genesis

14:20, and follow the same structure: BLESSED > DIVINE NAME >
RELATIVE PARTICLE > DIVINE DEED.

(Gen 24:27)

( Exod 18:10)

(1 Sam 25:3233)

(1 Sam 25:39)

(2 Sam 18:28)
It appears from the above examples, and from the many other
occurrences of such similar utterances (Ruth 4:14; 2 Sam 22:47; 1 Kgs
1:48; 5:21; 8:15, 56; 10:9; 2 Chr 2:11; 6:4; 9:8; Ps 66:20), that blessing
God required a reason expressed by means of a clause introduced by a
relative pronoun. This though could be interpreted as having an
56
asseverative function only. Surprisingly, none of the above blessings has

two verbs in their respective quotative frames, as Melchizedeks
utterance does.22
The two blessings Melchizedek issues have distinct forms that
qualify them as rather prosaic utterances, barely poetic, if at all, or as
cultic utterances with a poetic ring. Therefore, the criteria for ancient
poetry (parallelism, paronomasia, mixed meter) do not help the
researcher in this case to discuss and decide on matters of its date.23 The
absence of the relative pronoun in authentic old Hebrew poetry and its
rarity in formal poetry24 are evidence against this being taken as a
poetical form. It is best to take it as a prose form.25 At any rate, the two
blessings could well stand in for a complex ritual that took place in the
real procedures of Abrams meeting with Melchizedek.
THE PLOT
After tracking Abrams able men in their northern campaign, away from
the Siddim Valley and the peaceful and comfortable environment of
Mamre, the plot returns to another valley. The old Valley of Shaveh,
known also as Kings Valley, witnesses the emergence of two
unexpected characters, the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, king of
Shalem and priest of El-Elyon. Abram gives attention to the king-priest
first. It was honourable to do so, because the king of Shalem brought
gifts, whereas the king of Sodom had only requests.26
Some scholars doubt the unity of the plot. For Hermann Gunkel,
the style of Gen 14 is mixed, mingling ancient history and legend, and he
22. For terminology and examples see Cynthia Miller, The Representation of Speech in
Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM 55; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996).
23. For more grammatical, lexical and stylistic characteristics of archaic Hebrew
poetry, see W. F. Albright, A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm 68),
HUCA 23 (195051): 139; F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient
Yahwistic Poetry (Biblical Resource; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 58, 32.
24. Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, 2s.
25. Cross and Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 19; D. N. Freedman,
Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1980), 23.
26. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 115 (WBC 1; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 315. Emerton does
not take the reply of the king of Sodom as discourteous, just for being laconic (J. A.
Emerton, Some Problems in Genesis XIV, in Studies in the Pentateuch [ed. J. A.
Emerton; VTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1990], 82).
57
catalogued it for that reason as an incipient historical scholarship.27

Margalith expects that a legend should not have a well-constructed plot,
but rather a badly-cobbled medley of episodes dimly remembered from
past traditions.28 The variety of genres, noticed by other authors, has
been interpreted as proof of multiple editorial interventions.29 Emerton
believes that verses 1820 were a later interpolation from Davids time
because they interrupt the natural flow of the story, introducing
Melchizedek after announcing Beras arrival on the scene. 30
One should see verses 111 functioning as exposition for the
whole narrative in Gen 14. This exposition is not unparalleled among the
narratives in the Abraham Cycle, if Gen 11:27b32 is accepted as part of
the narrative of Abrams calling. There, too, the reader is given many
details on the main characters of the story, as well as on some secondary
characters. Thus, the story in Gen 14 loses its punch and its climax if
verses 111 are not part of the original narrative. As it stands, Abrams
battle is told third, after the Mesopotamian campaign in the Transjordan
and the battle of the plain. This fits with a triadic pattern the Hebrews
preferred.31
It is to be noted that the role of Melchizedek in the plot is
secondary. Even in relation to the king of Sodom, Melchizedek is
secondary. The rebellion of the cities of the plain (Sodom included)
prompted the Mesopotamian campaign, and Lot was a citizen of Sodom.
Since the author follows the main conflict between Abram and the king
of Sodom, the secondary details do not receive the same attention. The
brief appearance of Melchizedek in the story allows both the narrator and
the reader to stay with the main character and the main theme of Gen 14
15, namely Abrams attitude toward earned goods. Such a function of the
new character is called topicalization.
The device of switching attention onto Melchizedek immediately
after announcing the entry of the king of Sodom in verse 17, only to have
27. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (trans. M. E. Biddle; Macon, GA: Mercer, 1997), 289.
28. Similar legends would be Parsifal, Siegfrid, and Wilhelm Tell (Othniel Margalith,
The Riddle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek, ZAW 112 [2000]: 5018; 5045).
29. Claus Westermann takes the introduction (vv. 111) as report, and verses 1217,
2124 as narrative, leaving aside verses 1820 as an inserted episode (Genesis 1236:
A Commentary [Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1981], 19092).
30. J. A. Emerton, The Riddle of Genesis XIV, VT 21 (1971): 4078; idem, Some
Problems, 78, 91.
31. Wenham, Genesis 115, 307. Emerton (Some Problems, 83) is not ready to
accept the validity of this argument for a unity between verse 17 and verses 1820.
58
the king addressing Abram subsequently in verse 21, is meant to express

simultaneity. In other words, while the king of Sodom was initiating the
contact with Abram, Melchizedeks cortge approached Abram.
Sodoms king was witness to all that took place between Abram and
Melchizedek. Wenham explains the recall of the king of Sodom as a
literary strategy of cohesion, holding together verse 17 with verses 1820
by means of a chiasm, A: king of Sodom comes > B: Melchizedek brings
> B: Melchizedek speaks > A: king of Sodom speaks.32 Alongside the
chiasm, there are other elements of coherence that bind together verses
1820 to the immediate context.
The repetition of apparently redundant material for the purpose
of simultaneity, known as resumptive repetition is one of these
features.33 In Gen 14:1721, the repetition of the phrase king of Sodom
is necessary to ensure the reader does not confuse this character with
Melchizedek after his intervention in the plot. A narrative mainline does
not need to specify explicitly the subject with every verb, especially if
the subject does not change or is understood from the context. This is
exactly what happens in Gen 14 with the verbs referring to the invading
kings (vv. 57, 1112), the kings of the Canaanite Pentapolis (vv. 34),
and Abram (vv. 1416). The fact that the phrase king of Sodom is
stated again in verse 21 is by itself a sign that this story had included the
Melchizedek episode from its very beginning. One wishes that a similar
clarification had been in place for the otherwise ambiguous clause in
verse 20c.
Another resumptive repetition, though on a larger scale, is found
in Gen 14 when the name of the combative kings is given again (vv. 89)
following several details on the military campaign of the Mesopotamian
coalition (vv. 57). Although the main items are taken up in verses 89,
there are three main differences.34 First, the names of Canaanite kings are
truncated; when repeated they all look like the anonymous king of Bela,
without their respective personal names. The author could have opted for
this possibility to anticipate their tragic end by depersonalizing them.
Second, the author changed the order of the kings in his list. By giving
priority to the Canaanite kings, the order of the two groups of kings in
32. Ibid., 315.

33. Shemaryahu Talmon, Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 11233, mainly 122ff.
34. For repetitions with variation see Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative:
Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Studies in Biblical
Literature; Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987), 39093.
59
verses 12 is reversed and allows switching the focus of the reader from
the marauders to the patriots.35 The names of the Mesopotamian kings
are reversed as well (D E B C), although the repetition is verbatim in
their case.
Third, the author employed repetition only after unexpected
grammatical transformations. By that we do not mean replacing the
introductory formula with a finite verb because that was expected. The
renewed focus on the Canaanite kings required a proper active verb to
describe their involvement in the war (A). Most significant is the change
from the very concise they made war (F) to a more detailed they
waged war against them in the Siddim Valley (F). Thus, a clearer sense
of confrontation and a location are provided. The new rendering has a
new addition as well, four kings against five, which underlines the
possible odds of the outcome, which, after the account of the successful
campaign in Transjordan and the depersonalization of the Canaanite
kings, has only one possible reason: to postpone obvious conclusions.
A
E
F
J
K
(Gen 14:12)
L
(Gen 14:89)
The general purpose of repeating such a large piece of the story

is to reconnect the plot after the description of the Transjordanian
35. Wenham noticed the chiastic reproduction of the kings, Mesopotamian > Canaanite
> Canaanite > Mesopotamian, but did not integrate the switching of the Mesopotamian
kings (Genesis 115, 305).
60
campaign intruded, altering the chronology of the story (i.e.,

dischronologization).
Repeating the phrase king of Sodom (v. 21) without giving his
name follows the plot closely (he is anonymous on his second
occurrence). It was necessary to repeat the phrase for clarity (making
clear who is the subject), since the intrusive appearance of Melchizedek
(simultaneity) might have directed the reader to take the king of Sodom
for Melchizedek. Such a strategy bespeaks honest narrative artistry and
not unscrupulous political maneuvering of texts.
Next to the previously mentioned features of inner coherence of
the story, one could follow Mathews in identifying verbal and thematic
connectors linking Gen 14 to the surrounding chapters.36 Thus, Abrams
march to the most northern end of the country in pursuit of Lot (14:14) is
seen as a fulfillment of Gods command to travel across Canaan (13:17).
Abram is camped at Mamres oaks (14:13), where the story left him at
the end of the previous narrative (13:18). His conflict with Kedorlaomer
of Shinar is an expression of the ancient conflict between the
descendents of Shem and those of Ham, whose main representative is
Nimrod, the founder of Babel and Assyria according to Gen 10:912,
thus the archenemy of Abrams descendants. At Babel, humanity built a
tower from bricks and bitumen (11:3), the latter being one of the
economical assets of Sodom and Gomorrah (14:10), most likely the
cause that sparked the war.37
Abrams victory over the foreign coalition of kings comes as a
fulfillment of Gods promise to give him international fame and use him
by blessing others through him (12:13). Both the Amorite allies of
Abram and the kings of Canaan, Melchizedek included, are blessed with
riches due to Abrams successful campaign. Several comments
concerning Lot and Sodom at the end of chapter 13 anticipate the events
of chapter 14. Thus, Zoar is another name for Bela (13:10; 14:2, 8;
19:22), Lot approached Sodom (13:1112) only to settle there eventually
(14:12), and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are described as evil
( ;13:13), and wicked ( ;18:23, 25). The kings of these cities
36. J. G. Mathews recent monograph Melchizedeks Alternative Priestly Order: A

Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:1820 and its Echoes Throughout the Tanak
(BBRS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013) investigates the Melchizedek episode
intertextually seeking reasons for the original inclusion of the episode into the narrative
of Genesis 14 in order to prove that the Hebrew Bible exploited the theme to promote
an alternative priesthood to that of Aaron.
37. Ibid., 5458.
61
have names that play on these very adjectives: of Sodom and of

Gomorrah (14:2).38
As for the connections to chapter 15, Mathews speaks of several
plays on words, the first of which is between the verb to deliver
(14:20) and the noun shield (15:1), whose roots are built on the same
consonants ().39 God promised Abram a reward ( ;15:1), a term
that is made by reversing the consonants of possession ( ;14:11, 12,
16, 21),40 a term reiterated in 15:14.41 Another wordplay is identified
between the noun for help ( )in Eliezers name and the one for seed
( ;15:3, 5, 13, 18). The connection to chapter 14 comes in the form of
a gematria, since Eliezers numerical value is 318, exactly the number of
armed slaves Abram prepared to pursue the Mesopotamians.42 Two more
wordplays link Melchizedeks name and title to Abrams faith, which
was credited to him as righteousness ( ;15:6) and resulted in a life
that ended in peace ( ;15:15).43
One theme stands out as binding together not only Abrams life
but the patriarchal narratives as well, namely possessions. Abram left
Haran with all his possessions (12:5), took refuge in Egypt with them,
and returned to Canaan having more (13:12), only to be separated from
Lot because they had too much (13:6). Abram pursued the
Mesopotamians to retrieve all the possessions of Lot and the kings of
Canaan (14:1112). The same pattern is evident in the story of Jacob,
who sojourned in Padan-Aram, Canaan, and Egypt only to become richer
in cattle (31:18; 32:5; 46:6; 47:4, 27). The term for cattle ()
provides another wordplay with the verb to acquire (), from whence
38. Ibid., 5860.

39. Ibid., 61, following G. W. Coats, Genesis (FOTL 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1983), 123; G. Granerd, Abraham and Mechizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple
Times in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (BZAW 406; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 75; and K.
A. Mathews, Genesis 11:2750:26 (NAC 1B; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman,
2005), 158, 163.
40. Mathews, Melchizedeks Alternative, 62.
41. Coats, Genesis, 123. Coats adds the verb to go out, he noticed to be used in
14:17, 18 but in 15:4, 5, 7, 14 as well.
42. Mathews, Melchizedeks Alternative, 6668. Whether the original author intended it
or knew gematria at all is difficult to prove.
43. Ibid., 7071.
62
the participle used in reference to God comes (14:19, 22).44

One can conclude that there are plenty of reasons to see the
narrative in chapter 14 as well built, displaying features of coherence not
only to its own plot, but also to the main story of Abraham and the
patriarchal narratives. It is safe to say that the final form of the narrative
in chapter 14 is the work of one mind, well aware of the biographical
highlights of Abrahams life.
MELCHIZEDEK: WHAT IS IN THE NAME?
During the last two centuries, as the hypotheses for the origin and
function of the Melchizedek text in Gen 14 multiplied, the interpretation
of Melchizedeks name revealed aspects that were unknown before or
considered of little importance. Several questions that sprang out of those
critical interactions follow: How is one to understand the compound
proper name made of two nouns in juxtaposition? What is the purpose of
the hireq after the noun ?Is this a nominal-sentence name or a
compound name? Is Melchizedek a theophoric name? How does
relate to ?
In order to define the meaning of , one has to explain the
hireq after . Layton identified four possible explanations: (1)
pronominal suffix, (2) it signals a gentilic adjective, (3) hypocoristic
suffix, and (4) hireq compaginis, nothing more than an archaic
connector. Options (2) and (3) are not applicable to our context because
they require a noun in an absolute state, not in construct, as is the case
with .45 Whereas Layton decided reluctantly that hireq functions as a
pronominal suffix here, Joon & Muraoka are certain that it is rather a
hireq compaginis.46 Waltke & OConnor presented the hireq as
indicating a genitive singular, a remnant of the old case system.47
44. Ibid., 6265.

45. Scott C. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew
Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 11821.
46. See B. K. Waltke and M. P. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lane, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 93 l, m. Evidence of compound names built
by means of hireq compaginis were not found at Ugarit though, mainly because
Ugaritic alphabet does not have a sign for it. Cf. Richard S. Hess, The Onomastics of
Ugarit, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; Leiden:
Brill, 1999), 507.
47. Waltke & OConnor, Hebrew Syntax, 8.2.c.
63
This matter is further connected to the interpretation of the

relationship between the two nouns in the name. If it is not just a
compound name, should be taken as a nominal-sentence name.
Various ancient authoritiesHebrews, Philo, and Josephus
being among thempreferred to translate the name Melchizedek as
king of justice.48 If the character bearing the name in some
fragmentary manuscripts from Qumran (4Q180, 4Q181, 4QAmram, and
4Q280)49 is indeed the opponent of , translated as king of
wickedness, it follows that Melchizedek should be translated as king of
justice even in the manuscripts from Qumran.50 This rendering assumes
a hireq compaginis.
Layton prefers the rendering my king is Zedek, because he
believes that this option reflects better the religious context that might
have originated the name.51 This was the preferred interpretation in
Gunkels day as well.52 Horton takes the compound name as a throne
name, built as a construct relationship, but its interpretation is different
altogether: Zedeks king.53 Rosenberg reads the god Zedek everywhere
the term appears in the Hebrew Bible, not only in narrative texts, but
in prophetic texts as well.54 All the above interpretations, though, are
based on the as yet unproved assumption that there was a god bearing
this name who was worshipped in Jerusalem as well as in other parts of
Canaan, or that Zedek was a well-known divine epithet. To pretend that
only some divine attributes stand for the name of homonymic gods could
48. in Antiquities I 10,2 (1801).

49. 11QMelch is also useful for the presence of Melchizedek although his opponent is
Belial. See J. T. Milik, Milk-sedeq et Milk-resa dans les anciens crits juifs et
chrttiens, JJS 23 (1972): 95144; and Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and
Melchiresha (CBQMS 10; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 1981).
50. Kobelski (Melchizedek and Melchiresha, 56) is ready to accept this translation
only as a popular variant that eventually superseded the original cultic one (Zedek is
my king).
51. See Layton, Archaic Features, 10754 on hireq compaginis, and 13940 for
Melchizedeks name.
52. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (3rd ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910),
285.
53. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 4243
54. R. A. Rosenberg, The God Tsedeq, HUCA, 36 (1965): 16177.
64
have been a practice in antiquity, but who decides what divine attributes
do not follow this practice, since Yahweh is described by many?55
Zedeq as an epithet is easier to accept than a divine name
among scholars of ancient Ugarit. Wyatt takes the noun as a divine
epithet only, rendered as noble god (KTU 1.108 R:13a),56 and makes
no mention of such a deity when he speaks of the Ugaritic pantheon.57
The parallelism between and , functioning as fixed word-pairs in
Hebrew poetry (Isa 1:26; 32:17; 48:18; 60:17), as well as in Ugaritic
poetry, is long attested.58 But the term is also parallel with ,59 and
as far as we know no one looked for such a god. Moreover, the term
appears in the Ugaritic literature in connection with other nouns (e.g.,
attwife, blhusband, lord, and mlkking) and it is advised
that one render the phrase as legitimate/lawful wife/husband/lord.60
This interpretation makes use of the hendiadys principle, when two
nouns are coordinated to express another concept.
Layton provides other examples of compound names constructed
by juxtaposing a common noun to a proper noun denoting a place:
(Num 21:19), and ( Josh 19:33), as well as the throne name
meaning lord of Bezeq (Judg 1:57).61 In these cases Layton
accepts the construct relationship as the sufficient explanation of the
relationship between the two nouns. Consequently, it is possible to
render as king of Zedek where the proper noun stands for a
location or a divinity (possessive genitive).
If is not a compound clause, but a nominal-sentence
name, what type of nominal verbless clause qualifies it? In a
55. Ahuva Ho, Sedeq and Sedeqah in the Hebrew Bible (American University Studies
VII; Theology and Religion 78; New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 4345.
56. N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues
(Biblical Seminar, 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 395.
57. N. Wyatt, The Religion of Ugarit: An Overview, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies
(ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 52885.
58. W. G. E. Watson, Fixed Pairs in Ugaritic and Isaiah, VT 22 (1972): 464.
59. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup
26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 327.
60. See KTU 2.81: 2, 11, 20, 31. Cf. Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquin Sanmartin, A
Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Handbook of Oriental
Studies: Section 1, The Near and Middle East 67; trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 779.
61. Layton, Archaic Features, 117.
65
classification clause, an entity qualifies another (most likely an

adjective), and the nominal predicate precedes the subject. In an
identification clause, an entity is identified with another, and the subject
comes before the nominal predicate.62 The interplay of the subjectnominal predicate is important in these circumstances.
Identification clause
(Gen 6:9)
Classification clause
(1 Sam 24:18)

Noah [was] a just man.

You [are] more just than me.
Since we have two nouns and not a noun and an adjective, the
only alternative to the construct relationship (king of justice) is an
identification clause (my king is Zedek or Malki is justice). By
necessity, each of these options implies a theophoric name.63
Unlike Melek Shalem, the name Malki-Zedek has two
peculiarities: it is written with a maqqeph both in Gen 14 and in Ps 110,
and has a connective yod. Compared with this, Melek-Sedom is always
with a maqqeph, with two exceptions (vv. 2, 22).64 Hebrew compound
names usually do not take a maqqeph in the Massoretic tradition of the
Hebrew Bible, but here the Massoretes preferred to keep the two nouns
of Melchizedek as one thought unit.
MELEK SHALEM
This gloss on the name of Melchizedek knew many interpretations across
the centuries. One of the main issues raised concerns the quality of the
second noun . Is it a common noun, an adjective, a proper noun
denoting a geographical location, or a deity?
62. F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (JBL Monograph
Series 14; Nashville: JBL, 1971), 3134. For identification clauses, see examples #1 ff.,
and for classification clauses see examples #94 ff. Also S. Tatu, The Qatal//Yiqtol
(Yiqtol//Qatal) Verbal Sequence in Semitic Couplets: A Case Study in Systemic
Functional Grammar with Applications on the Hebrew Psalter and Ugaritic Poetry
(Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 3; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 17677.
63. As Roy A. Rosenberg proposed in The God Tsedeq, HUCA 36 (1965): 16177.
See also Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresha.
64. Waltke and OConnor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 127, n. 6.
66
Anderson advanced the theory that the king of Shalem is

actually the king of Sodom, and the text should be emended.65 Thus,
one could transform the name of the intruder into the name of the new
king of Sodom who replaced Bera after he found his death in the tar pits
where he had fallen. Anderson overlooks the fact that the king of Sodom
is mentioned without a name, as all the other Canaanite kings, the second
time he appears in the text (v. 8). Thus his anonymity is owing to the plot
development, not to some untold events or narrators oversight. Besides,
there are no textual variants to substantiate such an emendation. This
theory has found no followers.
Sigmund Mowinckel, followed by Rosenberg, took as the
name of the sun god, whose manifestations were Melek (king), Shalim
(covenant) and Zedek (justice).66 H. H. Rowley, in his theory, even had a
place for the sun god worshipped at Jerusalem prior to Davids triumph
over Jerusalem, the bronze serpent Nehushtan.67
Shalim was indeed a Phoenician god, twin brother to Shahar,
both sons of the supreme god El, known for their insatiable appetites and
for bringing the day (Shahar = dawn) and making the day pass (Shalim =
dusk).68 His presence in the mythological texts of Ugarit is rather scarce
(KTU 1.100:4547), and the worship of this god alone is theoretically
impossible in a polytheistic society and practically not attested to have
been taking place in any ANE city.
Other scholars read in Gen 33:18 as the earlier versions
(LXX, Targums, Vulgate, Peshitta and Jubilees 30:1) suggested, as if it
was another name for Samaria (Alexander Polyhistor, Eusebius of
Caesarea),69 a city neighbouring Samaria (Eusebius of Emesa,
65. C. E. Anderson, Who Was Melchizedek? A Suggested Emendation of Gen 14:8,

AJSL 19 (1903): 17677.
66. See the republished edition of his work Psalms in Israels Worship (2 vols. in one;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 2004) 13233. Roy A. Rosenberg proposed (The God
Tsedeq 16177) that the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah were actually promoting the
sun-god of Jerusalem and were frustrated by Manasseh (177).
67. H. H. Rowley, Zadok and Nehushtan, JBL 58 (1939): 13241.
68. John C. L. Gibson, The Mythological Texts, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed.
W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 200201.
69. See Alexander Polyhistor, Concerning the Jews (1st cent. B.C.) quoted by Eusebius
in Prep. Ev. 419a; Eusebius of Caesarea, Onomasticon 150:17. The Madaba map (6th
cent. mosaic from St. George church in Madaba, Jordan) has Shalem associated with
Shechem. S. Landersdorfer, Der Priesterkonigtum von Salem, JSOR 9 (1925): 203
67
Epiphanius of Salamis),70 or even a valley near Samaria.71 Alternatively,

Jerome proposed that Shalem was the place near Aenon, where John
the Baptist was active (John 3:23).72 Going on, these scholars identify
Shalem in Gen 33:18 with the one in Gen 14, but such a theory based on
conjecture alone cannot stand. Not only is the adjective reinterpreted as a
noun, but also the following assumed clause is too compact, missing a
necessary or .
The evidence for the name of Jerusalem in ancient documents is
mixed. On one hand the city appears in earlier extra-biblical documents
under the names Urushalimu (Egyptian execration texts, 19th18th cent.
B.C.), Uru-Salim (El Amarna Tablets, 15th14th cent. B.C.), and Ur-sa-liim-mu (Sennacheribs stele, 8th cent. B.C.).73 On the other hand,
Jerusalem is known in the Bible during the pre-monarchic period under
the name Jebus (Judg 19:10, 11; 1 Chr 11:4), a city where Jebusites used
to live (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21). Psalm 110 identifies the city of
Melchizedek with Jerusalem (Zion). Shalem and Zion are also paralleled
in Ps 76:3. Later on, Genesis Apocryphon 20:13 identifies Salem with
Jerusalem. Even though there is no proof that Salem was used as a
hypocoristicon simultaneously with the longer name Jerusalem, such a
possibility still exists. The arguments in favor of identifying Salem with
Jerusalem are still open to debate, but those against the option are not
superior.74
Identifying Salem with Jerusalem is impossible to Margalith due
to the geographical setting of Abrams battle with the Mesopotamians. If
the war took place in the area of Dan and the pursuit continued until they
reached Hobah, in the vicinity of Damascus, his return, Margalith says,
must have taken place via the Kings Way in the Transjordan.75 Even so,
there was an alternative route that followed the hill country of Ephraim
______________________________________________________
16; J. A. Emerton, The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek, in Studies in the
Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 41, Leiden: Brill, 1990), 4572.
70. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 55.2. This theory is embraced by A. Alt, Das
Institut im Jahre 1928, Palastinajahrbuch 25 (1929): 559.
71. J. G. Gammie (Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:1820, JBL 90
[1971]: 38596) follows J.T. Miliks suggestion.
72. Emerton, The Site of Salem, 4551.
73. Gammie, Loci of the Melchizedek tradition, 389.
75. Margalith, The Riddle of Genesis 14, 5078.
68
and passed near Jerusalem.76 Abram would have preferred the route
through Canaan to the one through Transjordan, since his camp was
loaded with all the prisoners and the animals recovered needed a more
friendly and familiar territory.
Before we conclude this part of our analysis, it is useful to see
how relates to . Traditionally the phrase Malki-Zedek,
Melek Shalem was interpreted as a throne name, followed by a gloss
with reference to the domain of the king. Thus Zedek is a dynastic title
used for the kings of Salem.77 The pattern of the name Melchizedek is
evident in another name that belonged to a king of Jerusalem, namely
Adoni-Zedek (Josh 10). Similarly, was used for the monarchs of
the Beer-Sheba area (Abi-Melek).
Margalith argues that Melek Shalem is just a gloss for Malkizedeq, thus a theophoric name itself for the same person, because
Shalem, Melek/Milku and Zedeq are all theophoric names.78 If all are
theophoric names, how do they relate to one another? Only an
identification clause could explain such an agglomeration of theophoric
names, but are they normal?
For Rowley, the presence of Zedek in a compound name is
proof of a theophoric name, even though that name might have been long
forgotten (e.g., Zedekiah, Jehozadak).79 But these names are theophoric
because they carry the name of Yahweh. Whether Zedek used to be the
name of a god or his hypostasis is as good a speculation as any other. If
the king of Babylon changed the name of Mattaniah into Zedekiah (the
justice of Yah, also a prophetic name in 1 Kgs 22) for a purpose, which
is not necessarily to revive an ancient religious tradition, but to warn the
king in office of his covenantal allegiance to Babylon and the
consequences derived from his oath taken in the presence of Yahweh.

77. H. Zimmern and H. Winckler, K.A.T. 2:224 apud Rowley, Melchizedek and
Zadok, 465, n. 7, 466. See J. A. Emerton, Riddle, 426.
78. Margalith (The Riddle of Genesis 14 and Melchizedek, 506) reads as follows:
. There are no textual variants to support this claim, it remains a
mere speculation. Milk / Maliku could be rendered as a god, because the name is
present in a prayer of a mythological mare to the goddess Shapsh, alongside other
deities (KTU 1.100 R 40ff). See R. S. Hess, Cultural Aspects of Onomastic
Distribution in the Amarna Texts, UF 21 (1989): 20916; idem, Amarna Personal
Names (SORDS 9; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993).
79. Rowley, Zadok and Nehushtan, 132.
69
The nine kings in Gen 14 are listed by name and have a gloss
with reference to their respective domains. An auxiliary identification
gloss inserted for the anonymous king of Bera (v. 2), makes clear that
these nouns are meant as geographical terms. Therefore, should
be taken as a gloss in reference to Melchizedeks domain.
Given all the above, we believe there is not enough evidence to
offer an alternative to the traditional interpretation of the name
Melchizedek. Thus, would stand as a compound proper name,
having two nouns connected via a hireq compaginis, thus meaning king
of justice.
MELCHIZEDEK: INDIRECT DESCRIPTION
The God El-Elyon
Although the Tendenz during the first half of the twentieth century was to
read [El]-Elyon as a distinct deity superior to Yahweh,80 or as part of a
divine triad alongside Yahweh and El or Shadday,81 there are scholars
80. G. von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testamenti (TB 8; Munich: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1958), 1:144; O. Eissfeldt, El and Yahweh, JJS 1 (1956): 2537.
Marvin H. Pope (El in the Ugaritic Texts [VTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1955], 5557) reads
the fragmentary evidence of the Ugaritic literature as if Elyon is Els grandfather,
although in order to reach that conclusion he has to ignore the witness of the Sujin
inscription where El and Elyon are connected by means of the conjunction w, as in
other Ugaritic compound names like Kothar we-Khasis as well as Qudsh wa-Amrar,
and refers to a single deity. For the Sujin inscription see H. Bauer, Ein aramischer
Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Die Inschrift der Stele von Sudschin, AfO
8 (19321933): 116; G. R. Driver, Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from
Soudschin, AfO 8 (19321933): 2036.
81. Levi della Vida proposes a triad on the basis of Aramaic inscription of Sefire (8th
cent. B.C.), where El (Lord of Earth) and Elyon are distinctive deities and part of a
divine triad alongside Shamen. This information concurs with that Eusebius collected
about the Phoenicians (Prep. Ev. 1:10, 1516). Thus, El-Elyon in Gen 14 is for della
Vida produced by merging two gods into one, rather than a theological speculation.
Cf. Levi della Vida, El-Elyon in Genesis 14:1820, JBL 63 (1944): 19.
Morgenstern (The Divine Triad in Biblical Mythology, JBL 64 [1945]: 1537)
supports della Vida, and points out the Mesopotamian triad Anu, Enlil, and Enki-Ea,
and the Greek triad Hypsistos, Ouranos, and Kronos. One god is responsible for each of
the three cosmic planes. In search for other examples of triads in the Bible,
Morgenstern notices other divine names, such as Shadday, and Eloah that appear in
connection with El or Yahweh. His theory is that the Yahwist authors of the biblical
text merged the tradition of the three gods and divine triad, as the activities, powers and
attributes of one universal god. All this happened during the so-called Deuteronomic
Reformation (516490 B.C.).
70
who doubt that interpretation,82 despite its contemporary supporters.83

For Kelso, is an ancient name, common among many
Semitic peoples and fully convergent with the historical perspective of
the material in chapter 14, not used exclusively for Yahweh (Num
24:16).84 In Numbers, as in Ps 91:1, the name Elyon is parallel to
Shadday. The fact that is present in the oracles of Balaam,
another non-Jewish character, is further proof of its non-Yahwistic
original context as well as its antiquity. Rmi Lack finds that Elyon is a
common name among the West Semites for the supreme being in their
respective pantheons, and the association of Elyon with Shadday and
Tsur in biblical literature is proof of its antiquity. 85
Freedman noticed that such names are proof of ancient poetry,
originating during the so-called patriarchal revival period (9th cent.
86
B.C.). The name is preferred in the patriarchal blessings (Gen
28:3; 43:14) and is the name God revealed to the patriarchs (Gen 17:1;
35:11; 48:3; 49:25 cf. Exod 6:3).
The connection between El and Yahweh in relation to the use of
the title Maker ( )of heaven and earth in the biblical literature and
its theological evolution supports its antiquity. The title El-Elyon
appears in the eighth-century extra-biblical literature (cf. the inscription
at Sefire, with reference to the god El in a Karatepe inscription from 720
87
B.C.) and a fragmentary inscription from Jerusalem (7th cent. B.C.).
Therefore, it is safe to say that by this time at least, the god El was
known in Canaan.
82. D. I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National
Theology (ETSMS 2; Jackson, MS: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), 14, n. 18;
N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and
Biblical Tradition (UBL 13; Mnster: Ugarit Verlag, 1996), 35051.
83. S. B. Parker, Sons of (the) God(s) Myhla(h)/ Myla/ Nwylo ynb, in Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn et al.; 2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill,
1999), 796.
84. J. L. Kelso, The Antiquity of the Divine Title El Elyon in Gen 14, JBL 20
(1901): 5055.
85. Rmi Lack, Les origines de Elyn, le Trs-Haut, dans la tradition cultuelle
dIsral, JBL 24 (1962): 4464.
86. D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 78, 89.
87. The inscription found in the Jewish quarter reads, , that is El, creator
of earth. See P. D. Miller, El, the Creator of Earth, BASOR 239 (1980): 4346.
71
It is also found in several pre-exilic biblical texts (Ps 18:14 = 2

Sam 22:14; Ps 46:5; Deut 32:8). Scholars suggest various theories on
how exactly Elyon came to be associated with the God of Israel.88 It is
generally agreed that Elyon is a titular ascription that can be attached to
any divine name, not only to El, a name that was used to define the
supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon.
As for the phrase , late theological thinking
disconnected the procreative overtones of the verb from the title
attributed to Yahweh, present in early literature (Gen 4:1; Deut 32:46,
89; Num 24:4, 8, 16),89 and developed it through meditation on Gods
miraculous involvement in salvation history (Pss 115:15; 121:2; 124:8;
134:3; 134:56) and polemical reformulation of the role of Yahweh as
creator (Deutero-Isaiah). This title is notably used in a formulaic
structure in the context of the dispensation of blessing, a trait preserved
from Gen 14 (cf. Gen 49:2426).
In order to avoid the procreative connotation of the verb ,
different verbs were used: , and ( Exod 15:11; Pss 72:18; 98:11;
and Isa 42:5; 45:18 respectively). Alternatively, speaking of God as
creating heaven was avoided altogether (Ps 139:17, 1011; Jer 32; Neh
9).90 The association between heaven and earth represents the cosmic
polarity and is used as a merism for all that exists.
Concerning its age, the phrase is either an ancient
name, popular among the Semites, or a rather recent name (even postexilic), and therefore an anachronism in Gen 14. Since it appears in the
context of other terms that suggest a rather old history (Melchizedek,
Shalem, El-Elyon), the former interpretation is more probable.
King of Shalem and Priest of El-Elyon
As for Melchizedeks double function as priest and king in Canaan,
Skinner states, it is perfectly credible, though not historically
attested.91 Did anything change during the last century to alter such an
assessment? Discoveries at Ugarit (from 1929 onwards) offered the
88. N. C. Habel, Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth: A Study in Tradition
Criticism, JBL 91 (1972): 32122.
89. Mathews (Melchizedeks Alternative, 7677) noticed that the poem of Moses in
Deut 32, 33 and Num 24 displays other connections to Melchizedeks blessing: the
references to help and foes (Deut 32:27; 33:7; Num 24:4).
90. Habel, Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth, 32636.
91. Skinner, Genesis, 268.
72
necessary pieces of evidence. It becomes apparent from Ugaritic

literature that the king enjoyed priestly functions. Looking at the heroic
stories discovered at Ugarit, John Gray discovers that by their titles (son
of god, dispenser of fertility) and actions (sacrifices and divination), the
king of Ugarit mediates divine revelation to his people.92
As intermediaries between the patron god of the dynasty and the
people, the role they played in religious rituals proves that the kings must
have occupied a central position. Moreover, after death, when they were
deified, kings continued to play the role of guardians of the dynasty. 93
Wyatt sees the kings role as a pontifex, similar to the one played by
Mesopotamian kings.94 By the Amarna period (14th cent. B.C.), there
were 12 priestly families attested at Ugarit, and the high priest belonged
to the royal family.95 This could be a sign of the emancipation of
priesthood, but we cannot know where this could have led because
Ugarit was destroyed by the Sea People invasion during the twelfth
century.
The Exchange of Offerings
What is the meaning of the offering of bread and wine? Some take it as
expressing a full banquet.96 Waltke arrives at this conclusion noting that
bread and wine appear next to each other in biblical and Ugaritic
literature as word-pairs.97 The examples of Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry
92. John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to
the Old Testament (VTSup 5; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 153.
93. Juan-Pablo Vita, The Society of Ugarit, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. W.
G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 468.
94. See N. Wyatt, The Religion of Ugarit: An Overview.
95. Ibid., 154.
96. Wenham, Genesis 115, 316; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 117
(NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 408; B. K. Waltke, Genesis: A
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 233.
97. Although Waltke quoted 2 Sam 17:2729 and Prov 9:5, the former is not a poetic
text, but a list of goods. Similar lists can be found in 1 Sam 10:3, 16:20, 25:18. The
Ugaritic text is quoted from John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (Leiden: Brill, 1965),
94.
73
where bread and wine are used as word-pairs could be multiplied.98

It is likely that this poetic usage as a merism passed into common speech
as in Gen 14:18 and other biblical texts.99 Refusing any cultic
connection, Emerton thinks that bread and wine were offered simply as
refreshments, as Ziba did for Davids camp (2 Sam 16:18).100
For others, the phrase conveys a covenant feast between equal
parties101 or a cultic feast.102 The interpretation of Melchizedeks offering
as a cultic meal seems to have been preferred in later antiquity and
medieval Christian interpretation,103 although the Epistle to the Hebrews
did not go that far with its typological fulfilment of Melchizedek in
Jesus. Since the text is wanting in details, one cannot be certain of the
meaning of the bread and wine offering just from the information it
offers. Nevertheless, the episode resembles the incident with the
Gibeonite delegation to Joshua (Josh 9:1214) and the meeting between
Isaac and Abimelek (Gen 26:2630). Comparing this scene (Abram and
Melchizedek) with the following one (Abram and Bera), Elgavish
concludes that the text reveals Abrams openness for a partnership with
Melchizedek and a denial of a similar link to Bera.104
Although the clause lacks an explicit subject, it was traditionally
assumed that Abram was the giver and Melchizedek the receiver. Vawter
and Smith assert that Melchizedek was actually offering Abram a tenth
98. Proverbs 4:17; 9:5; Eccl 9:7. Isaiah 55:12 adds milk, to the wine, and bread,
and Deut 29:5 adds strong dinks. Bread and wine as parallel pairs are found in
the following Ugaritic verses: KTU 1.4 iv:3537; 1.5 i:2425; 1.6 vi:4344; 1.16
iii:1415; 1.23:6 (M. Dahood, Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs, in Ras Shamra
Parallels [ed. Loren R. Fisher; AnOr 49; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
1972] 1:24950).
99. See Josh 9:1213; Judg 19:19; Neh 5:15.
101. David Elgavish, The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek King of Salem: A
Covenant Establishing Ceremony, in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature,
Redaction, and History (ed. A. Wenin; BETL 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 49899.
102. W. T. McCree, The Covenant Meal in the Old Testament, JBL 45 (1926): 121.
J. E. Coleran (The Sacrifice of Melchizedek, TS 1 [1940]: 2736) argues that it was
more than refreshments because Melchizedek acted as a priest, supporting Jeromes
translation for he was a priest of the Most High (cf. participial clauses in Gen 15:2;
18:1, 8, 10, 27; 20:3; 25:29; 32:32; 37:2; 42:38; 48:14).
103. Cf. Lucien-Jean Bord, Melchisdek: formation, histoire et symbolique dune figure
biblique (Paris: Geuthner, 2013).
104. Elgavish, Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek, 5068.
74
of all the goods the Mesopotamians plundered from Salem, which Abram
had recovered. This is interpreted accords with a similar gesture by the
king of Sodom afterwards.105 Who is the giver and who is the receiver,
after all? Is this a case of intentional ambiguity? It is very unlikely that
Abram remained idle, without a reply to such a lavish initiative from a
king-priest towards him. It is against his generous, outward approach to
relationships. The text itself demands a reply, if not verbal, then at least a
pragmatic one.106 Besides, we find as an afterthought that Abram has
sworn an oath not to keep any of the booty for himself, and with good
reason, so that nobody can accuse him of capitalizing on others
sufferings (Gen 14:2223). A tenth extracted from the plunder could well
be interpreted as a gift to conclude a treaty between equal parties as in
the covenant between Abraham and Abimelek (Gen 21:27), or as a gift to
deity as the Israelites offered after war (Num 31:4950; 1 Sam 20:26
31).107
Emerton draws attention to the ambiguity of all with reference
to the goods from which Abram extracted the tithe.108 Is it all the spoil
Abram captured from the defeated eastern kings that he tithed or all his
goods foreign and domestic? The same phrase appears in verse 23, but
there it is qualified by that [is] yours. Again Emerton signals a problem
because the gift already offered to Melchizedek should be subtracted
from all that belonged to the king of Sodom.109 If one follows the
story, the context usually makes plain what is apparently obscure. Since
the story was not written for twenty-first-century Europeans, we should
expect that some things desirable for our clarification were not necessary
at all for the primary audience. In order to make good sense of the story,
one should gain all the information scattered in the text and not only
within the one verse.
Therefore, it can be assumedgiven the practice of vowsthat
Abram vowed to keep for himself nothing that belonged to the king of
105. B. Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977),
199. R. H. Smith (Abram and Melchizedek [Gen 14:1820], ZAW 77 [1965]: 129
53) builds his case on the parallel with the Keret story (Ugarit). Abram himself
received riches from Pharaoh and Abimelek (Gen 12:1020; 20; 21:2233).
106. Although rare, the Bible records situations in which no answer is given.
107. Elgavish Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek, 502.
108. Emerton, The Riddle of Genesis XIV, 408.
109. Emerton, Some Problems, 82.
75
Sodom if God would give him the victory (vv 2223). The enemies were
defeated and the victorious party that included Abram and his Amorite
allies took over all those defeated (vv. 1416). On their way back home,
the army was feeding on the goods recovered (v. 24a). When meeting
Melchizedek, Abram gave him a tenth of his share (v. 20c), and later on,
Abram promised the king of Sodom all that belongs to him from his
share (vv. 2224). Unless the king of Sodom was sovereign over the
other four kings of the Canaanite alliance, so that he expected the return
of all the goods recovered, Abram kept for himself his share from all the
defeated, which included only properties that belonged to the other
Canaanite kings. Thus, the king of Sodom was much poorer than before
the Mesopotamian raid, but not totally impoverished.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Scholars continue to be divided on the issues of the historicity and
antiquity of Gen 14. Whereas members of the traditionalist school are
still finding evidence of its antiquity (earlier than J with J glosses for
Wenham),110 representatives of the critical school argue for a late or very
late origin of the text (during the monarchy for Emerton, Deuteronomist
for Astour, and postexilic for Westermann).111 There were times, though,
when even critical scholars were convinced of its ancient origin. At the
turn of the twentieth century, Gunkel declared, The account contains
very ancient information to be considered historical.112
The Jerusalem legitimation hypothesis took the two offices
Melchizedek held at once as justification for two distinct offices held by
two different persons and founders of dynasties at Jerusalem: David for a
dynasty of kings and Zadok for a dynasty of priests. Its aetiological
function hangs by a thread: Zadok must be proven a Jebusite priest coopted by David to share power in the conquered Jerusalem. In order to do
so one must prove that Davids imperial bureaucracy was strongly
controlled so that he could have built for himself a public image of
impeccable virtue and true Yahwism despite his obvious concessions to
110. Wenham, Genesis 115, 307.
111. Emerton, The Riddle, 407426; M. C. Astour, Political and Cosmic Symbolism
in Genesis 14 and in Its Babylonian Sources, in Biblical Motifs: Origins and
Transformations (ed. A. Altmann; Studies and Texts 3; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1966), 6974; C. Westermann, Genesis 1236: A Commentary (trans.
J. J. Scullion, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985), 192.
112. Gunkel, Genesis, 288.
76
paganism. Kingdom narratives, public memory, and prophetic memory

witness against this case.
Besides, Melchizedek was not a high priest but a priest and a
king, or a king acting in a priestly manner. There is too little evidence to
make him a monotheist and, for that reason, the prototype of Israelite
priesthood, and even less certain the forefather of the Hasmoneans (high
priests and kings at the same time).113 A text like this, holding a
Canaanite priest in such a positive light, could not have been produced
by the strong Yahwistic agenda of the post-exilic community. The only
option that takes into account all the data is to place the events of the
story as early as the Late Bronze Age, and have it written not later than
the Early Iron Age. This story could not have been written during the
time of the monarchy.
Genesis 14:1820 is a very short episode that has generated a
disproportionate amount of debate. Its transmission in time is
surprisingly impeccable given the number of hypotheses offered to
explain its content and origin. The passage consists of a few lines of
narrative and two blessings uttered by a character named Melchizedek,
having two different objects, Abram and El-Elyon. Both form and
content qualify his utterances as blessings that follow a pattern with a
long tradition in Israel, attested both in ancient Hebrew poetry and in
inscriptions. The episode integrates well with the plot in terms of
characters, their relationships, and contribution to the plot.
Melchizedeks presence is vindicated as topicalization, and his
contribution in the story happens simultaneously with that of the king of
Sodom. The resumptive repetition accounts for the repetition of the
phrase king of Sodom, which some scholars thought to be a sign of the
editorial work that inserted verses 1820 into Abrams heroic tale.
Name, titles, words, and actions describe Melchizedek.
Following the most natural reading of names and titles in the narrative,
stands for the name of the priest of El-Elyon, and
gives the extent of his domain. Whereas Shalem cannot be identified
with any certainty in the narratives of the Abraham Cycle, it was
customary among the Canaanite/Phoenician heads of city-states during
the Late Bronze Age to function as priests on behalf of their people.
113. Skinner, Genesis, 2701; Mark Treves, Two Acrostic Psalms, VT 15 (1965): 81
90; John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 3048; Bodinger, Lnigme
de Melkisdeq, 303ff.
[JESOT 3.1 (2014): 7797]
David, the Ruler of the Sons of His Covenant (

) : The Expansion of Psalm 151 in 11QPsa
ANDREW C. WITT
Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto
andy.witt@mail.utoronto.ca
Since 1965, there has been great debate concerning the

provenance of the Great Psalms Scroll (11QPsa).Building off
recent analyses by Strawn and Debel, this article argues that
Psalm 151A contains the sectarian phrase sons of his
covenant, which was added to the psalm as part of its
Qumranic revision. This puts into question Flints position that
the 11QPsa-Psalter tradition had a provenance prior to the
establishment of the Qumran community. In its final pages, the
article examines some of the implications of its findings,
particularly concerning the redactional history of Psalm 151,
and how one might interpret Psalm 151A in light of its
expansions.
KEYWORDS: Psalm 151, 11QPsa, Great Psalms Scroll,
sectarian terminology, provenance
In 1965, James Sanders published the first edition of the Great Psalms
Scroll of Cave 11 (11QPsa), and in a number of essays following that
publication, outlined his theory concerning the scrolls provenance and
scriptural status.1 The scroll has been dated to ca. 3050 A.D., and is the
largest psalm collection to be found at Qumran.2 The contents of the
scroll include a large portion of psalms from Books IVV in the
1. James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrn Cave 11 (11QPsa) (Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert IV; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); idem., The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967); idem., Variorum in the Psalms Scroll
(11QPsa), HTR 59 (1966): 8394; idem., Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of
Canon, McCormick Quarterly Review 21 (1968): 115; idem, The Qumran Psalms
Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed, in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene
A. Nida (ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 7999.
2. Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17;
Leiden: Brill 1997), 39.
78
Received Psalter (Pss. 90150), but arranged in a different sequence and

alongside a number of non-biblical psalms. Sanderss initial proposals
continue to be the objects of much debate in the discussion surrounding
11QPsa. Since the broad lines of that discussion are well known, a
comprehensive summary is hardly needed here. To refresh memory,
though, a brief summary of those lines pertinent to the concerns of this
article will be given.3
THE GREAT 11QPSA DEBATE
Peter Flint has helpfully summarized and organized Sanderss proposals
into four theses, entitling them the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis:
(1) Concerning Gradual Stabilization:11QPsa witnesses to a
Psalter that was being gradually stabilized, from beginning
to end.
(2) Concerning Textual Affiliations: Two or more Psalters are
represented among the scrolls discovered in the Judaean
Desert.
(3) Concerning Provenance:11QPsa was compiled at Qumran,
and thus may be termed the Qumran Psalter.
(4) Concerning Status: 11QPsa contains the latter part of a true
scriptural Psalter. It is not a secondary collection that is
dependent on Pss 1150 as found in the Received Text (MT150).4
The implications of these theses are inherently significant, since taken
together they posit a book of Psalms which did not have a fixed form
until the first century A.D. Given their importance, Sanderss proposals
3. For such a summary, and to see some of the major differences in content between the
MT-150 and 11QPsa, see Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls; cf. Gerald Wilson, The Editing
of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985); idem., The
Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate, CBQ 47 (1985): 62442.
4. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 8.
WITT: David, the Ruler of the Sons of His Covenant
79
have been met with mixed reactions.5 Leading figures such as

Shemaryahu Talmon, M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, and Patrick Skehan have
argued that 11QPsa is a secondary psalms compilation, originating within
the Qumran community as the product of a liturgical reordering of the
MT-150, and, therefore, does not represent a true, scriptural Psalter. It
was a scroll used and useful in the life of the Community, probably for
liturgical purposes, and thus a liturgical manuscript, but not a copyin
the text-critical senseof the Book of Psalms.6
Even though Sanders was arguing against formidable opponents,
his views continued to garner support and by the 1980s something of an
impasse was reached.7 Through the publication of a monograph and
several articles by G. H. Wilson, Sanderss position was further refined
and given new fodder.8 In the current state of the field, the strongest
argument related to Sanderss above proposals has been given by Flint,
beginning with his 1998 monograph.9 Refining the earlier proposals of
5. ShemaryahuTalmon, Pisqah Beema Pasuq and 11QPsa, Textus 5 (1966): 1121;

M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,
Textus 5 (1966): 2233; Patrick Skehan, A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa, CBQ 34
(1973): 195205; idem, Jubilees and the Qumran Psalter, CBQ 37 (1975): 34347;
idem, Qumran and Old Testament Criticism, in Qumrn: Sa pit, sathologie et son
milieu (BETL 46; ed. M. Delcor; Paris: Leuven University Press, 1978): 16382; idem,
The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint, BIOSCS 13
(1980): 1444. Further dissenters include: Menaham Haran, The Two Text-Forms of
Psalm 151, JJS 39 (1988): 17182; idem, 11QPsa and the Canonical Book of Psalms,
in Minah le-Nahum (ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; JSOTSup 154; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 193201; Ben Zion Wacholder, Davids
Eschatological Psalter: 11Q Psalmsa, HUCA 59 (1988): 2372; Emanuel Tov,
Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran, RevQ 16 (1995): 581600;
Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeptionim Frhjudentum: Rekonstruktion,
Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (STDJ 49;
Leiden: Brill, 2003); Brent Strawn, David as One of the Perfect of (the) Way: On the
Provenience of Davids Compositions (and 11QPsa as a Whole?), RevQ 24 (2010):
60727.
6. Strawn, Perfect of (the) Way, 610.
7. Peter W. Flint, Unrolling the Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, in The Oxford Handbook of
the Psalms (ed. William P. Brown; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 233.
8. Gerald Wilson, Editing; cf. idem., The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered; idem,
The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the
Hebrew Psalter, CBQ 45 (1983): 37788; idem, The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa)
and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping, CBQ 59 (1997): 44864.
9. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls; cf. idem, Of Psalms and Psalters: James Sanderss
Investigation of the Psalms Scrolls, in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture
and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr;
80
Sanders and Wilson, he argues that one should not speak of a Qumranic
provenance for 11QPsa; rather, it is better to recognize at least three
major Psalter traditions existing contemporaneously before the Qumran
period.10 He calls these traditions Edition I, Edition IIa, and Edition IIb.
In his proposal, Flint argues that two secondary Psalter traditions
were stabilized in a two-stage process from a pre-existing Psalter
tradition (Edition I), which included only Pss 1/289/92.11 Expanding on
this first edition, Edition IIa (the 11QPsa-Psalter) added the texts most
fully attested in11QPsa, which includes Edition I plus Pss 101151, and
at least Ps 93.12 For Flint, there are at least two other scrolls in the
Judaean desert which evidence this edition of the Psalter:11QPsb and
(possibly) 4QPse.13 At the same time, he finds no evidence that this
edition was compiled by the Qumran community, but that it most likely
came into existence among Jewish sects who advocated a solar calendar
in a period prior to that of Qumran (early 2nd cent. B.C.). Moreover,
given this provenance, the 11QPsa-Psalter must have had widespread use
in early Judaism, far beyond the communities at Qumran.
The second secondary edition of the Psalter, Edition IIb,
originated contemporaneously with Edition IIa, prior to the Qumran
period.14 This edition, however, was used in communities advocating a
lunar calendar.15 Differing from Edition IIa, it expands Edition I by
including Pss 90150, and is most fully represented by the Received Text
(MT-150). Further evidence of its existence is found at Masada (MasPsb)
______________________________________________________
JSOTSup 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 6583; idem, The Book of
Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VT 48 (1998): 45372.
10. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 15071.
11. Ibid., 16869. Here, Flint only thinks Edition I included up to Psalm 89, but in
Unrolling he has opened up the possibility that it could have included up to Psalm 92.
12. Flint, Unrolling, 24041.
13. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 169; cf. idem, 11QPsb and the 11QPsa-Psalter, in
Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time: proceedings of the Baylor
Symposium on the Book of Psalms (ed. Joel S. Burnett, W. H. Bellinger, Jr., and W.
Dennis Tucker, Jr.; LHB/OTS 488; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 15766. Key
compositions (Catena, Plea for Deliverance, Apostrophe to Zion) and the sequence 141
133144 show support in 11QPsb, with possible support in 4QPse coming in the
sequence 118104[147]105146.
14. Flint, Unrolling, 233.
15. Flint, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 169 n. 82, identifies one such group as the Pharisees.
81
and in the Septuagint translation(s).16 For Flint, in the caves surrounding

Qumran, however, there is no unambiguous support for the MT-150.17
This raises a question about which Psalter edition had scriptural status
at Qumran,18 and he gives his full support for the 11QPsa-Psalter.19
EVALUATING FLINTS ARGUMENT
In his 2010 article, David as One of the Perfect of (the) Way, Brent
Strawn set out to investigate the possibility of sectarian terminology in
one of the non-biblical texts included in 11QPsa, Davids Compositions.20
As part of his argument, he laid out several problem areas with Flints
proposals. First, he wonders whether the evidence can bear the weight of
16. Ibid., 170 n. 85. The exact date that the Old Greek (OG) of the Septuagint gained its
shape is difficult to ascertain, though most scholars, following Swete, would date it ca.
200 B.C. In Unrolling, (24041) Flint continues to attempt to create distance between
the OG and the MT-150, not even mentioning it in his conclusion.
17. Ibid., 170 n. 87. He identifies several scrolls with ambiguous support (that is, scrolls
which could support either second edition): 1QPsa, 1QPsb, 2QPs, 4QPsl, 4QPsm, 4QPso,
4QPsp, 4QPsu, and 11QPsd.While most of these scrolls are ambiguous, the contents of
4QPsm, 1QPsa, and 2QPs seem quite unambiguous in their support of the MT-150, even
if they are fragmentary. Moreover, several scrolls, though in partial disagreement with
the MT-150, at least witness to a number of sequences which are present in the MT-150
against the 11QPsa-Psalter.These include 4QPsb (the sequence of Pss. 91103) and 4QPsf
(the sequence Pss. 107-108-109). Unambiguous is not the best term to describe the
textual support of the MT-150 at Qumran.
18. It should be noted that recent scholarship has delineated between scriptural in the
sense of canonical, and scriptural in the sense of a functional and authoritative text
within a community. There is significant debate concerning the canonical status of the
Psalter during this period, and even if the term canon is an appropriate description of
any text prior to ca. 100 A.D. In this article, I am using the term scriptural in the latter
sense, of a functionally authoritative text within a community. For Flint, the question is
which edition of the Psalter was functionally authoritative within the Qumran
community?
19. Ibid., 22324, 227. In Unrolling (24041), Flint also recognizes several other
arrangements of psalms which he does not consider proper editions of the Psalter, but
smaller collections (4QPsb, 4QPsd, 4QPsk, 4QPsn, and 11QapocPs).
20. The term sectarian is used in reference to texts, phrases, and terminology which
have widespread reception and significance by the manuscripts found surrounding
Qumran. Cf. Carol A. Newsom Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran, in The
Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. B. Halpern, W. H. Propp, and D. N. Freedman;
BJS 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 16787.
82
Flints argument.21 He summarizes Flints argument as follows:

Because (a) a solar calendar was widely used in Early Judaism
(witness 1 Enoch and Jubilees) and because (b) 11QPsa reflects
that calendar (via DavComp especially), then it follows that (c)
11QPsa represents a psalter-type that was widely used in Early
Judaism. If so, it further follows that (d) 11QPsa is far from a
sectarian, non-biblical composition, secondary and inferior to
the MT-150 Psalter. Instead it is a true, Scriptural Psalter
reflective of one shape of the Psalms in Early Judaism.22
For Strawn, the evidence from Qumran, Masada, and Naal Hever
cannot definitively establish the direct correlation between steps (a)(b)
and steps (c)(d). In fact, at present there is no non-Qumranic evidence
for the 11QPsa.23 Even though Qumran shares a solar calendar with other
Jewish sects, this does not make the use of that calendar or the use of
11QPsa any less sectarian; it only shows that the solar calendar was not
the sole property of the Qumran community. Further evidence is needed
to demonstrate that 11QPsa was used outside of the Qumran community,
and as Strawn points out, such evidence is completely lacking.24 Along
these same lines, Strawn questions Flints proposal that while the
specific manuscript of 11QPsa was copied at the Qumran site, the
tradition it represented was brought to the Qumran community from
somewhere else.25 Since such evidence is again completely lacking, he
concludes that Flints proposal is entirely speculative and is almost
entirely a matter of conjecture.26
21. Strawn, Perfect of (the) Way, 614.

22. Ibid., 612.
23. Ibid., 614.
24. He writes, By all accounts, the find-spot and the date of 11QPsa place this
manuscript squarely at Qumran, whichagain, by virtually all accountswas very much
a sect, even a highly exclusivist and radically isolated one (Ibid., 614).
26. Strawn, The Perfect of (the) Way, 615.
83
A second problem area is the use of sectarian terminology

in11QPsa.27 Flint adamantly asserts 11QPsa contains none of the terms so
frequently used in the unambiguous sectarian texts.28 Strawn, however,
argues that he has found a sectarian phrase in 11QPsa 27.3 (Davids
Compositions), perfect of (the) way ( + ). For him, when the
use of + in DavComp is considered along with the numerous
and stereotypical instances of that collocation elsewhere in Qumran
literature . . . David begins to look like a Qumran Covenanter himself
like one of the , one of the Perfect of (the) Way, perhaps even
paradigmatically so.29
Strawn avers such sectarian terminology raises serious questions
about 11QPsa as a whole, especially since Davids Compositions has
received so much attention in the previous debates. Evocatively, he asks
how and why a larger non-sectarian manuscript (tradition) should or
would contain sectarian compositions or terminology?30 Sharing his
concerns and questions, I will attempt to add to Strawns observations by
showing that another sectarian phrase can be found in 11QPsa 28.12 (Ps
151A:7b), the sons of his covenant () .
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON PSALM151A-B
Prior to the discovery of 11QPsa, Ps 151was known in Greek, Old Latin,
Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian translations, all showing clear
dependence upon the Greek.31 Unlike its Greek counterpart, the version
in 11QPsa is written in Hebrew, and appears as two separate psalms
27. Ibid., 61522. Again, this includes terminology or phrases which either have
distinctive usage within the Qumran community though originating elsewhere, or have
little to no attestation outside those communities, but could provide evidence of particular
interest for these communities.
29. Strawn, Perfect of (the) Way, 622. Two important independent confirmations of
Strawns findings can be found in Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption, 254, and in
Devorah Dimant, Pertinence and Usage of Taxonomy, RevQ 24 (2009): 11 n. 12.
30. Ibid., 623. Here he seems to be speaking of Newsoms category of composition, not
reception and use.
31. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 94; cf. M. S. Smith, How to Write a Poem: The
Case of Psalm 151 (11QPsa 28.312), in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben
Sira: proceedings of a symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (ed.
T. Muraoka and J. E. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 182 nn. 13. Such
widespread ancient support will lend credibility to Debels theory of redaction in Psalm
151, as well as the uniqueness of the Qumranic version of Psalm 151 found in 11QPsa.
84
(151A-B). Below they are laid out in parallel to help see their
differences:32
LXX
11QPsa
This Psalm is
autobiographical. Regarding
Dauid and outside the number.
[When he fought Goliad in
single combat.]
A Hallelujah of David the son of

Jesse.
I was small among my brothers

and the youngest in the house
of my father;
I would shepherd the sheep of
my father.
My hands made an
instrument;
my fingers tuned a harp.
And who will report to my

lord?
The Lord himself, it is he who
Smaller I was than my brothers,

and younger than the sons of my
father,
but he made me the shepherd of
his flock,
and ruler over his kids.
My hands made a harp,
my fingers a lyre,
and I rendered glory to the Lord;
I spoke in my interior:
3
The mountains cannot bear
witness for me,
nor can hills declare (anything) on
my behalf,
(nor can) the trees my words (of
praise),
(nor) the flock my works (of
praise).
4
For who will declare, who can
speak,
who can recount my works?
The Lord of all saw,
32. LXX translation from A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other
Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (ed. Albert Pietersma and
Benjamin G. Wright; New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 61920.
11QPsa translation is mostly from Eric Reymond, New Idioms within Old: Poetry and
Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (= 11QPsa) (Early Judaism and its
Literature 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 55; and Sanders, Dead Sea
Psalms Scroll, 9799. Texts have been underlined to help identify variants and
expansions more easily.
listens.
85
God of all, he heard,

and gave ear to (my thoughts).
5
It was he who sent his

messenger
and took me from the sheep of
my father
and anointed me with the oil of
his anointing.
5
My brothers were handsome

and tall,
and the Lord did not take
delight in them.
He sent his prophet to anoint me,

Samuel to exalt me;
my brothers went forth toward
him,
beautiful of form, beautiful of
appearance,
6
exalted in their height,
beautiful with their hair,
The Lord God did not choose
them.
7
But he sent and took me from

behind the flock,
and he anointed me with holy oil;
and he made me leader for his
people,
and ruler over the sons of the
covenant.
I went out to meet the

allophyle,
and he cursed me by his idols.
7
But I, having drawn the
dagger from him,
I beheaded him
and removed reproach from
Israels sons.
[PSALM 151B]
At the beginning of Davids power
after the prophet of God had
anointed him.
Then I (saw) a Philistine uttering
defiances from the r[anks of the
enemy].
. . . I . . . the . . .
From this layout, one observes that both 11QPsa and the LXX contain
material that the other does not, and often have variant readings of those
parts of the psalm which are parallel. Throughout the past 50 years,
scholarly attention has been fixed on the bulk of this variant material. In
particular, scholars have provided analysis along two main lines: the
textual relationship and/or development between these two versions, and
whether or not there are traces of Orphism in 151A:24.33
33. Concerning the textual relationship between the two versions, see the following:
James Sanders, Ps. 151 in 11QPss, ZAW 75 (1963): 5961; Patrick Skehan, The
Apocryphal Psalm 151, CBQ 25 (1963): 4079; James Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms
Scroll, 94103; Menaham Haran, The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151, JJS 39 (1988):
86
Beginning with Sanders, the Hebrew text form of Psalm 151 in

11QPsa was understood as the original form of the psalm, with both its
form and content reworked and abbreviated in the LXX.34 This view
was widely held until 1988, when Menaham Haran challenged it through
linguistic analysis.35 According to Haran, the opposite is true, [The]
Hebrew text behind Ps 151 LXX reflects the original extent of the Psalm,
Ps 151A-B being expanded and derivative.36
In a more recent article, Hans Debel articulated a third position,
arguing that Ps 151 LXX and Ps 151A-B are not necessarily directly
related to one another.37 Instead, he argued that both versions of Ps 151
stem from a now lost Hebrew text.38 This earlier text, which he
designated edition n, was faithfully translated into Greek and added as
a supernumerary psalm to the Greek Psalter and subsequent versions.39
Independently from this tradition, edition n was also revised by a
scribe who expanded portions of it through a reworking of 1 Sam 16:7.40
This revision was then divided between the calling of David (151A) and
the Goliath episode (151B), and may have also been enriched with other
expansive elements.
______________________________________________________
17182; Smith, How to Write a Poem, 182208; D. Amarma, Psalm 151 from
Qumran and Its Relation to Psalm 151 LXX. English Abstract, Textus 19 (1998): 183
85; M. Segal, The Literary Development of Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint
Version, Textus 21 (2002): 13958; Hans Debel, The Lord Looks at the Heart (1 Sam
16,7): 11QPsa 151A-B as a Variant Literary Edition of Ps 151 LXX, RevQ 23 (2008):
45973.Concerning the influence of Orphism, see the review of the discussion in Debel,
The Lord Looks at the Heart, 46466.
34. Haran, Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151, 172; cf. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll,
95.
35. Haran, Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151.
36. Debel, The Lord Looks at the Heart, 466, summarizing Harans position.
37. Ibid., 467.
38. Ibid., 472. This is also suggested in Devorah Dimant, Davids Youth in the Qumran
Context, in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (ed. J.
Penner, K. M. Penner, and C. Wassen; STDJ 98; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012), 114. She
does not seem to be aware of Debels argument.
39. Ibid., 472.
40. Ibid., 472, but cf. pp. 46871. Cf. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, 56, who describes it as
a midrash on 1 Samuel 16:113.
87
While Debel argues that it is wrong at this point to designate

either version as later or earlier historically,41 his observations
concerning 11QPsa have at least one important implication for the
concerns here: literary expansions have taken place between edition n
and Ps 151A-B. Though it is difficult for one to conjecture at what point
such literary expansions took place, I argue below that one of those
literary expansions, the phrase sons of his covenant, is both late and
germane to the concerns found in other unambiguous sectarian texts.
THE SONS OF HIS COVENANT ( ) OUTSIDE OF PSALM 151A
The collocation + ( descendant/son + covenant) has no
precedent in the biblical texts, and is only found in one Greek text in
early Judaism outside the scrolls of the Judaean wilderness (Pss. Sol.
17:15). Before looking at that text, I will first look at its six attestations
within the scrolls and fragments from Qumran.42 In the Qumran texts,
+ occurs three times in undisputed sectarian texts (1QM17.8;
4Q284 4.2; 4Q503 79.3),43 twice in a disputed text (4Q501 2; 7),44
and once in the text at hand (11QPsa 28.12).
41. Ibid., 473.
42. M. G. Abegg, Jr., James Bowley, and Edward Cook, , in The Non-Biblical
Texts from Qumran (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance; Leiden: Brill, 2003),
15860.
43. 1QM (War Scroll) is one of the core texts thought to have arisen from the Qumran
community itself. Cf. Devorah Dimant, The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and
Significance, in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (ed. Devorah Dimant and
Lawrence Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995), 38. 4Q284
(4QPurification Liturgy) is unclassified by Dimant, Qumran Manuscripts, 56, but is
identified as having a sectarian provenance by both Russel C. D. Arnold, The Social Role
of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community (STDJ 60; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 184,
and Hannah K. Harrington, Purity Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 5; New
York: T& T Clark, 2007), 63. 4Q503 (4QDaily Prayers) is classified by Dimant,
Qumran Manuscripts, 41, as a liturgical sectarian text, an identification shared by
Daniel K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27;
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1998), 2227; Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy, 12027; and D.
Olson, Daily Prayers, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts
with English Translations, Volume 4a:Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and
Prayers (ed. J. A. Charlesworth; Tbigen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 236. Note, sectarian
here designates texts with a provenance in the Qumran community, much like the
Gospels or letters of Paul would be sectarian for early Christian communities.
44. 4Q501 (4QApocryphal Lamentations B) is considered a sectarian liturgical text by
Dimant, Qumran Manuscripts, 41, but is considered non-sectarian by James R. Davila,
Liturgical Works (ECDSS; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 178. Adele Berlin,
88
In 1QM17.8, the phrase occurs in the middle of the final section

(14:end19:13+), which describes an epic battle against the Kittim.45
Following Nickelsburgs literary analysis, its occurrence can be more
narrowly understood as within an account describing Belials
counterattack to the first attack made by the armies of Israel (16:11
17:9).46 Here, a priest encourages the armies and in a final word says,
And you, sons of his covenant () , be strong in Gods crucible
until he shakes his hand and finishes his testings, his mysteries
concerning your existence (17.89). The phrase, then, is used
appositionally to encourage the armies of Israel to remain strong while
God tests them. Within the larger context, the sons of his covenant are
also given these other synonymous epithets: the lot of his covenant
( ; 17.6), Gods lot ( ; 17.7), and the sons of his truth
( ; 17.8). The importance of these final priestly encouragements,
combined with the significance the War Scroll had for the selfunderstanding of the Qumran community, give these epithets a certain
weight as self-designations. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that there
is a strong link between the Qumran communitys self-understanding and
the title the sons of his covenant.
4Q284 (4QPurification Liturgy) is a fragmentary scroll dated to
the first century A.D.47 According to Arnold, it contains a priestly
liturgy, recited by an individual presiding over the rites of purification.48
He also notes,
The people are designated, through the use of language that
emphasized their chosen-ness, their access to the covenant, and
their status as Gods lot. The sectarian nature of these titles
______________________________________________________
Qumran Laments and the Study of Lament Literature, in Liturgical Perspectives:
Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 19-23, January, 2000 (ed. E. G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2003), 13, 15-16, initially identifies the work as non-sectarian, but in concluding is
not as confident. Hence its designation here as disputed.
45. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A
Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 145.
46. Ibid., 145.
47. Arnold, Social Role of Liturgy, 181.
48. Ibid., 184.
89
ensured that these designations referred to the Qumran

community alone.49
Though little context remains to provide analysis of how the phrase is
specifically used in Fragment 4, from what does remain it appears that
sons of your covenant ( ; 4.2) is used in parallel with, or at
least designates the same group as, the phrase the lot of your truth (
;[]4.3). The change in pronoun from third-person to second-person
is due to the nature of the text, with the priest addressing God. This
variation does not change the thrust of the epithets, but their affinities
with those noted above in the War Scroll provide strong grounds for
taking them as self-designations of the communities at Qumran.
A third occurrence of the epithet occurs in 4Q503 (4QDaily
Prayers). This text is a large collection of fragmentary prayers dated ca.
10075 B.C.50 Through textual reconstruction, scholars have been able to
understand a great deal about them. Short, and formulaic in style, they
are organized chronologically, according to day of the month, and within
each day, by a designation for morning or evening prayer.51 Each prayer
averages between four and six lines in length, and the collection as a
whole seems to emphasize several basic themes and uses important key
phrases, such as light and darkness, knowledge, holiness, chosen-ness,
and the joint-witness and praise with angels.52 The designation sons of
your covenant appears in Fragment 79.3, within the prayers designated
for the morning of the sixth day, [And we,] the sons of your covenant
() , bless [your name,] with all the companies of [the light . . .
with al]l the tongues of knowledge (34). Here, the phrase is again a
self-designation of the ones praying, who are blessing the name of God
alongside the companies of the light () . One familiar with the
key terms and themes of the sectarian texts will again see the close
affinities with the above two texts, further corroborating the epithet sons
of his/your covenant as a self-designation germane to the interests of the
Qumran community.
The final two occurrences of the phrase are in 4Q501
(4QApocryphal Lamentations B), lines 2 and 7. The scroll has been
dated ca. 5025 B.C., and is a poetic text addressing God, asking for his
49. Ibid.
50. Olson, Daily Prayers, 235.
51. Arnold, Social Role of Liturgy, 120.
52. Ibid., 121. In footnote 54, Arnold identifies our phrase, sons of your covenant, a
key phrase emphasizing the theme of chosen-ness.
90
protection from persecutors within the Jewish community. 53 The first

occurrence of the phrase is in line 2, Remember the sons of your
covenant () . Within the larger context, the supplicant is
petitioning God to remember his or her community, which is also called
the removed ones of your people ( ; line 2), the forsaken
ones of your inheritance ( ; line 2), the desolate (;
line 2), the wanderers, whom no one brings back, the sorely wounded,
whom no one bandages, [those bent double, whom no one rai]ses up
( ; [ ]lines 34). It is
used, then, in reference to a faction of people within Israel whom God is
called on to remember (). In contrast to this group, a second faction of
people, the oppressors, are identified as the wretched ones of your
people ( ; line 4) who have disgraced the speakers group
through a lying tongue.
In 4Q501 line 7, the phrase, though partially deleted, appears
again and seems to function similarly to its use in line 2.54 The group
praying sees its enemies as the disgraceful sons of your people (lines
56) and asks that their posterity not be included among the [sons of
the] covenant ()[ ]. As Davila notes, in line 7 the phrase their
posterity seems to refer to hostile members of the Jewish community,
since there would be no question of the seed of the oppressing Gentiles
being associated with the covenant.55 In this prayer, then, we have a
faction of Israel identifying themselves as the sons of your covenant,
distinguishing themselves from another party in Israel (sons of your
people), likely seeing themselves as the true heirs of the covenant.
Though occurring in a text which may or may not be sectarian in
provenance, these two uses in 4Q501 at the very least show ideological
similarities with those expressed in sectarian compositions, as well as the
self-designation sons of your/the covenant in 1QM, 4Q284, and
4Q503.
My final investigation of the phrase is from Psalms of Solomon.
This work has a consensus dating to the middle of the first century A.D.,
and likely originated from a party in Jerusalem sharing similar concerns
53. M. Baillet, Qmran Grotte 4: III (4Q4824Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982),
7980; Davila, Liturgical Works, 177.
54. Speculatively, the partial-deletion of the phrase may prove an even stronger marker of
self-designation, since the mistake of the scribe would have been to write the epithet of
his community rather than to simply refer to the covenant of Israel.
55. Davila, Liturgical Works, 180.
91
over Jerusalem and messianism as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.56

Given the absence of many key features of the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g.
dualism, a sharp differentiation between who is in and out of the
community, etc.), it is unlikely Psalms of Solomon originated in the same
circles.57
Psalms of Solomon 17, where the phrase occurs, is noted for its
developed messianism.58 It is written by an author whose community has
had to flee from Jerusalem (17:1118) because of the treatment of its
citizens by an incoming foreign leader (17:7, 11). This invasion was
understood as punishment against the Jewish community in Jerusalem
for adopting the practices of the Gentiles (17:1520, 36). Out of this
situation, the psalmist turns to God (17:1, 46), and petitions for the
Davidic messiah to come to Jerusalem, purge it of both Gentile and
Jewish sinners, and reign righteously from Jerusalem (17:2145).
The phrase is used in 17:15, where the psalmist is describing the
impact of the foreign invasion on the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem. It
reads, And the children of the covenant ( ) in the
midst of the people of mixed origin surpassed them, there was no one
among them in Jerusalem who practiced mercy and truth.59 The
children of the covenant being referenced here are Jewish citizens,
surpassing even the Gentiles in avoiding the practice of mercy and truth.
It lacks the exclusivity observed in the scrolls above, and simply seems
to be a designation for those Jewish people who, though in rebellion, are
56. Jerry ODell, The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon, RevQ 3 (1961):
24159; Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, the Pharisees, and the Essenes, in
1972 Proceedings for the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies
and the Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Seminar (ed. Robert A. Kraft;
Septuagint and Cognate Studies 2; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972),
13654; D. Rosen and A. Salvensen, A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll 56.1518
and Psalms of Solomon 17.33, JJS 38 (1987): 98101; P. N. Franklyn, The Cultic and
Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon JSJ 18 (1987): 117; Robert R.
Hann, The Community of the Pious: The Social Setting of the Psalms of Solomon, SR
17 (1988): 18489; Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, Le milieu dorigine du 17e Psaulmes
(apocryphes) de Salomon, REJ 150 (1991): 55764.
57. It is far beyond the scope of this article to enter into these questions here. For helpful
reviews see the following: Joseph Trafton, The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research
JSP 12 (1994): 78; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 23847; Robert B. Wright, The
Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Jewish and Christian Texts in
Contexts and Related Studies 1; New York: T&T Clark, 2007).
58. Kenneth Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomons Historical
Background and Social Setting (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 84;
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004).
59. Ibid., 130.
92
still part of the covenant community of Israel. Its use, then, is much
different than that of 1QM, 4Q284, 4Q503, and 4Q501. While 4Q501
line 7 used the phrase in reference to those in Israel who are considered
true members of Gods covenant, in distinction from the rest of the sons
of your people, in Psalms of Solomon 17:15, no such distinction is
maintained.
Considering the above uses of the phrase in our texts above, the
following conclusions are reasonable. First, we can conclude that in the
undisputed sectarian texts (1QM, 4Q284, and 4Q503) the epithet sons
of the/his/your covenant is self-designating and particular to an
exclusive group of Jewish people, synonymous with the members of the
Qumran community.60 Second, in the disputed text 4Q501, the epithet is
also self-designating and is used to differentiate the praying faction from
other Israelite factions. And third, in the non-sectarian Psalms of
Solomon the epithet is used to refer more generally to Israelites (those in
covenant with God) as opposed to foreigners. From this discussion, then,
we can conclude that even though the collocation sons + covenant
( + )can be used in less sectarian ways within early Judaism, when
used by those at Qumran it is a self-designating referent to a particular,
exclusive group (faction) of Jewish people, synonymous with those
identifying with the Qumran community. This would add further
evidence to Strawns previous discovery of sectarian terminology, and, if
true, would further weaken Flints proposal. In what remains of the
article, I will investigate how the phrase is used in Ps 151A-B, and how
its inclusion in the psalm fits within the larger concerns of other sectarian
texts.
PSALM 151A AND ITS QUMRANIC EXPANSION
Psalm 151A can be divided into two general parts: verses 14b and
verses4c7.61 In the first part of the psalm, David is introduced (v. 1) as
60. Another similar phrase is the use of + ( 1QS 5.9; 6.19; 1QSa 1.2; 1Q36 7.2;
4Q258 VI.8; 4Q511 6364.II.5; 6364.III.5).
61. I follow the division by Jean Carmignac, La Formepotique du Psaume 151 RevQ 4
(1963): 37476, and Isaac Rabinowitz, Alleged Orphism of 11QPss 28 312 ZAW 76
(1964): 19697. Reymond, New Idioms within Old, 67, argues for four paragraphs: v. 1,
vv. 24b, vv. 4ce, and vv. 57. Pierre Auffret, Structure littraire et interprtation du
Psaume 151, RevQ 9 (1977): 16388, divides the psalm similarly according to a
symmetrical relationship where David is the passive object of the actions (v. 1), where
David is subject (vv. 24b), where God reacts to David (v. 4ce), and where God is
subject and David the object of the actions (vv. 57).
93
the shepherd of his fathers flock ( ) and ruler of his kids (

). The psalm then turns to describe the inward monologue of
David (vv. 2a4b). It recalls how David, since neither the mountains or
hills or trees or flock can bear witness to Davids works of praise, creates
musical instruments and worships YHWH (vv. 2ac). In the second part
of the psalm (vv. 4c7), God responds to Davids inward disposition by
sending the prophet Samuel to anoint him as a leader ( )for his
people and as a ruler over the sons of his covenant () .
For Ps 151A, Davids need to personally render glory to God sets him
apart from his brothers. The message of the psalm, then, seems to focus
on the transformation of David from his role as shepherd to his role as
king, a transformation tied to his inward disposition to praise God.
Reinforcing this message is the enveloping structure that occurs
between verses 1 and 7, which is tied to specific vocabulary (e.g. , ,
, and )and parallel grammatical structures (e.g. 1cd and 7cd
are both VOM//OM).62 What is interesting to note about the shape of the
psalm is that it is only partially paralleled by Ps 151 LXX. In that version
of the psalm, there is no reference to David being ruler or leader; instead,
Davids transformation from shepherding to anointing is focused on
Davids ability to overpower and vanquish Goliath, his enemy. The
effect of the expansions in Ps 151A-B is a refocusing of 151A toward
Davids changing flock, namely, from ruler ( )of his fathers kids
to the ruler ( )of the sons of Gods covenant. It is only after this
transformation takes place that the reader is ready to reflect on Davids
military success over Goliath and the Philistines (Ps 151B).
What is striking is how instrumental our phrase is in the
transformation in Ps 151A; it is one of the principal expansive phrases in
the psalm emphasizing Davids changing leadership role. Without verses
1d and 7cd, the focus of Ps 151A would be exactly the same as in LXX
Ps 151. The only difference would be a clearer identification of the
reasons why David is anointed (151A:2c3).63
AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL FOR 11QPSA AND THE MEANING OF

PSALM151A-B
62. Reymond, New Idioms within Old, 6970.

63. Dimant, Davids Youth, 11213, has also made similar independent observations
about the specific contribution these variant and expanded elements add to Ps 151A-B in
11QPsa.
94
Given the discovery of sectarian terminology by Strawn, and the

preceding argument for further sectarian terminology in Ps 151A, the
evidence demands that scholars seriously consider whether or not 11QPsa
could be, in C. Hempels words, a community-specific
(gemeindespezifisch) collection with authorship or revision by the
Yaad (Verfasserschaftoderberarbeitung durch den Jachad).64
Like the rule texts, 11QPsa is a manuscript collection
(Sammelhandschrift) that at some point in its composition was editorially
revised.65 That being the case, the possibility that a redactor
(berarbeiter) inscribed a phrase with ideological import into one of the
texts from 11QPsa, a text which did not have such language within its
own compositional level (Kompositionsebene), must remain open.66
Ulrich Dahmen, has, in fact, made such a case.67
As for the interpretation of Ps 151A, the acknowledgment of
sectarian terminology changes its interpretation. As Dahmen notes,
[David] is the paradigm of the small outsidera radical reality
for the Qumran communitywho, though unnoticed by the
wider public, is exalted by God and in the future will not only
succeed, but will become the unrivaled standard and the ideal of
a life well-pleasing to God. In this hope the Qumran community
has kept itself until the end.68
For Dahmen, the characterization of David in Ps 151A becomes
paradigmatic for the whole Qumran community. Davids story is one that
64. Charlotte Hempel, KriterienzurBestimmung essenischerVerfasserschaft von

Qumrantexten, in Qumran kontrovers: Beitrge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed.
Jrg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann; Katholische Akademie Schwerte 6; Paderborn:
Bonifatius, 2003), 75. In the essay, Hempel takes issue with some of the proposals made
by Dimant regarding the identification of sectarian texts (cf. Dimant, The Qumran
Manuscripts). In particular, Hempel emphasizes the difficulty in classifying redacted
texts. Her concern is with texts that have certainly been redacted by the communities at
Qumran, but which mostly likely did not originate with them (p. 75). For her, room must
be made for a more nuanced picture that considers a more complex literary traditionhistorical and redaction-historical (redaktionsgeschichtlichen) development (p. 80).
65. Ibid., 75.
66. Ibid., 79.
67. Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-RezeptionimFrhjudentum, 26263.
68. Ibid., 263. Translation my own.
95
can give them hope, providing them a picture of their own future. But
one can also observe broader significance than this.
Following Debels reconstruction, the literary expansion of Ps
151 edition n into Ps 151A-B has created a division between Davids
anointing as ruler over the Qumran community and Davids subsequent
military success over Goliath. As noted above, the effect of this division
in Ps 151A was to emphasize the transformation of David from shepherd
over Jesses flock to ruler over the sons of the covenant. The reason for
this transformation was Davids inward desire to give glory to God. His
inclination to praise, then, is what makes him fit to rule over the sons of
the covenant. As a paradigm, Davids praise was meant to instill the
value of worship with those who used this scroll at Qumran. Following
this through, the ideological impact is that just as David was given
dominion over the sons of the covenant through his worshipful deeds, so
Qumran covenanters would be given a special place over the sons of
Israel.
Moreover, just as this David, now the anointed ruler, is able to
slay enemy nations (Ps 151B), so the covenant community is anointed to
lead the battle against Belial and the Kittim (1QM). This interpretation is
more speculative, but it does offer an explanation for why the psalm
might have been divided into two. In this scheme, Ps151A allows the
community to see itself in the coloring of Davids divinely sanctioned
worship, while Ps 151B allows them to reflect on their special calling to
fight as the true Israel, the true sons of the covenant, against the Kittim.
The placement of Ps 151A-B in 11QPsa enhances such a
proposal further. In 11QPsa, Ps 151A-B is the concluding psalm of the
scroll, and is preceded by a non-biblical text enumerating Davids
Compositions (11QPsa 27:211; DavComp), and several verses from Ps
140:15 (11QPsa 27:1215) and Ps 134:13 (11QPsa 28:12).69 For
Sanders, these last columns of the scroll clearly demonstrate the belief
that David composed, or spoke, not only all the psalms in this scroll but
many, many more.70 The final texts included in 11QPsa, then, put all of
the psalms into the mouth of David. By doing so, the poetic and musical
abilities of David recounted in Ps 151A are given further clarification
and can be identified with what precedes Ps 151A in the scroll. Thus, if
the David of Ps 151A-B is a kind of figure or type to be imitated by the
Qumran community, the arrangement of the scroll can be seen as a kind
of liturgical joining with David in his praise, in preparation for the final
eschatological battle.
69. Dimant, Davids Youth, 100.
70. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 1011.
96
Such a view of David is described well by Dimant in her recent

essay on the youthful David of Ps 151A.71 For her, The portrayal of
David, who recognizes that his first duty is to glorify God, is strikingly
close to the ideals conveyed by the particular world-view of the Qumran
sectarian writings.72 She surveys 1QH 9:2933 to better appreciate the
theme of praise, concluding, Seen from the perspective of the primacy
attached by the sectarian ideology to praising God, [the] David of the
poem under consideration emerges as a prototype of perfect piety from a
young age, a characteristic which earned him royal leadership.73
Identifying with the piety of David through the use of 11QPsa, those at
Qumran were able to join with him in his praise, preparing themselves
for what may come in the future.
In conclusion, the debate over the provenance of 11QPsa will
undoubtedly continue, and whether the above analyses are correct will
require further discussion. But, as Dimant notes, some explanation needs
to be given for the differences between Ps 151A-B and its LXX
counterpart. Out of the above considerations, the tentative conclusion of
this article, given further sectarian terminology and the relationship
between this terminology and the expansive nature of Ps 151A-B (in
view of wider sectarian ideology), is that the present form of Ps 151A-B
originated within the Qumran community.74 Building off of Strawns
argument, this would continue to weaken Flints proposal concerning the
provenance of the 11QPsa, but by no means settles the debate on how to
71. Dimant, Davids Youth.

72. Ibid., 109110.
73. Ibid., 112. Dimant also suggests that the different title in Psalm 151A (Hallelujah),
as compared against the LXX, could reflect this emphasis on praise in the psalm (p. 102).
74. Dimant, Davids Youth, 114, similarly concludes, What matters is that the
Qumran version of this psalm is close to the particular Qumran ideology. In its present
form it seems to have been composed by a member of the Qumran community or a
related circle.
97
understand the growth of the Psalter or its potential alternative

arrangements.75
75. One might still posit that the tradition represented by 11QPsa has a provenance prior
to Qumran and that the specific manifestation of that tradition preserved by 11QPs a is
something peculiar to Qumran. For the present author, however, it is more likely that the
MT-150 was completed by the end of the third century B.C., that its use was widespread
in early Judaism, especially with its translation into the OG (without Ps 151), and that Ps
151 was included at a later date as a supernumerary psalm, as the manuscript tradition
unanimously indicates (contra William P. Brown, The Psalms: An Overview, in The
Oxford Handbook of the Psalms, 34, who erroneously notes that Codex Sinaiticus
presents Ps 151 as within the 151 Psalms of David. The manuscript clearly reads
.). The Psalms scrolls found in Caves 4 and 11 at Qumran are likely
liturgical collections of psalms, some with more popularity than others (hence, some
scrolls supporting others). If 11QPsa does represent a true alternative Psalter tradition (in
my view it is impossible to determine), then it is one which is peculiar to Qumran,
functioning authoritatively as a liturgical and meditative collection with clear ideological
connections to other undisputed sectarian texts (e.g. 1QM, 1QH).
[JESOT 3.1 (2014): 99149]
BOOK REVIEWS
Beginning Biblical Hebrew: A Grammar and Illustrated Reader by John

A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt. Illustrated by Philip William. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. 324 pp., US $28.70, softcover.
As many students of a second language can attest, pedagogical
methodology in language classes is often inadequate to the task. Rote
memorization of terms and rules may work for a small percentage of
students, but not for all (or even most). Fortunately, in many modern
second language classes teaching practice is shifting toward more solid
pedagogical ground. Instead of memorization, many teachers and
textbooks are embracing the insights from modern research in second
language acquisition (SLA). The results are classes that encourage
collaboration, active student engagement, and a focus on how language
learning works. As a former secondary Spanish teacher, I can attest to the
effectiveness of these methods.
Unfortunately, this has not often been the case in the study of the
biblical languages. John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt seek to
address this concern in their Beginning Biblical Hebrew: A Grammar
and Illustrated Reader, which unabashedly embraces SLA methodology.
Both of these authors have worked and taught extensively in the Hebrew
language. John A. Cook is Associate Professor of Old Testament at
Asbury Theological Seminary, where he has taught since 2007. Robert
D. Holmstedt is Associate Professor, Ancient Hebrew and NW Semitic
Languages at the University of Toronto. Beginning Biblical Hebrew
developed out of these authors mutual dissatisfaction with the limits of
Hebrew grammars. The resulting text comes at the end of several years
of practical adaptation in the classroom. As they state, Beginning Biblical
Hebrew has been guided by the goal of acquiring the ancient Hebrew
language as opposed to simply learning its grammar (p. 10). The hope
of such a goal is that it would lead to a contextual grasp and
understanding of the Hebrew language in use, as opposed to knowledge
of a list of grammatical rules that become jumbled together when a
student is faced with the Hebrew in its natural environmentthe biblical
text.
Beginning Biblical Hebrew is separated into two parts. The first
part, which contains the introductory material, reads from left to right
and presents fifty grammatical lessons, five appendices, a Hebrew-
100
English glossary, and an English-Hebrew glossary. The grammatical

lessons are short (sometimes only a page or two), contain brief
explanations, and some exercises. The lessons do not always follow a
traditional order for a Hebrew grammar. For instance, the prepositional
lamed, which is usually included in a chapter on the prepositions (lesson
13), is actually introduced in the ninth grammatical lesson. Cook and
Holmstedt do not present it for its prepositional function, but rather its
use in possessive clauses. While verbs, and the Qal perfect conjugation,
are presented in chapter 19, students learn about copular sentences in
chapter 6. This also includes the verb . Such ordering, which many
traditional teachers will no doubt find strange, is based on the recognition
that language is learned in small chunks of information that alternate
through the various aspects of grammar (p. 10). The result is that
students are to be reading and interacting with full Hebrew sentences in a
textual context much earlier than with the traditional presentation of
concepts, which require concepts to be compartmentalized until they are
connected much later.
The second part of the book is the Illustrated Reader. It begins at
the back of the book, and reads right to left, just as the biblical Hebrew
text. The Reader uses very little English, as it is meant to give the student
specific contextualized interaction with the Hebrew language. The table
of contents indicates the places the Reader should be used. The
Illustrated Reader provides further vocabulary lists, and gives the
students activities that require more than simple translation. The
exercises in the reader require students to organize vocabulary according
to type (e.g., animals vs. buildings) and use that vocabulary in actual
communication. The Illustrated Reader also uses images as much as
possible. Vocabulary words are not presented in lists, but with pictures.
Best of all, students are provided with a graphical presentation of select
stories from Genesis. These presentations resemble comic books, and
contain just enough exposition and dialogue (in Hebrew) to allow the
story to be told. The exercises give students a helpful context by which
they can interact with and acquire the Hebrew terms and concepts with
which they are working. Such centering of the acquisition process around
the storytelling process fits nicely with the findings in SLA research.
Those using Beginning Biblical Hebrew as a textbook should be
prepared for a steep learning curve at the beginning of the adoption
process. The authors do not provide much advice for instructors on how
to use the textbook effectively. Because of the radical shift in
methodology that they employ, this is an oversight that should be
addressed in a future edition. Further, Cook and Holmstedt do not use the
terminology that is common in the field of biblical Hebrew. For instance,
BOOK REVIEWS
101
they use the term bound nouns instead of the construct. Their reason
for avoiding jargonthe language is idiosyncratic and archaic (p. 11).
Nevertheless, anyone who wants to study biblical Hebrew seriously will
have to learn some of the specialized language in the field. This texts
approach may be valid from a students perspective, but I am not
convinced that we do service to our students by avoiding such terms.
Failure to do so at the introductory level may lead to confusion for
students later on.
This text is not for everybody, and should be used deliberately
and strategically. Those adopting this book should use it as the primary
textbook for the class. I attempted to adapt this text as a supplement to
another text in my undergraduate Beginning Hebrew class. This did not
work as well as it could have. Further, to use this text, class objectives
must shift from a covering mentality. That is to say, instead of making
the course goal covering up to the strong verb, the instructors goals
must shift toward those like students will be able to read basic Hebrew
texts.
By embracing SLA practices, Cook and Holmstedt have
provided a road map for further work in this direction. Cook and
Holmstedt treat the language acquisition process as a contextual, wholebrained process, and in doing so, they provide a great service to their
students. Beginning Biblical Hebrew is a cool breeze in what has often
been a desert of biblical Hebrew pedagogy.
WILLIAM K. BECHTOLD III
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Isaiah by David W. Baker. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds

Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. xii + 227 pp., US
$19.99, softcover.
This commentary on Isaiah is a separate reprinting of what formerly
appeared in volume 4 (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and
Daniel) of the five-volume series The Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds Commentary. Several of the more popular biblical books,
such as Genesis (John H. Walton), Psalms (John W. Hilber), and Isaiah
(David W. Baker), have been pulled out as stand-alone commentaries.
The series itself was written by excellent scholars and fills an important
niche. It provides cultural background information and interesting
illustrations to highlight concepts in the biblical books that other
102
commentaries often do not include. The commentary on Isaiah by David

W. Baker is no exception.
This commentary provides valuable information on the historical
and cultural foundations of the book of Isaiah, which helps to confirm
the accuracy of the people, nations, historical events, and the cultural
characteristics noted in this book. For example, a picture of a rock relief
recording Sennacheribs capture of Lachish adds a certain reality to the
events and depicts how Sennacherib accomplished itit is the closest
thing to a snapshot of this historical event that we will ever get.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this commentary is
truly a vast library. This well-written, well-illustrated work (over 2,000
illustrations) is primarily aimed at the layperson who wants to know
more about the customs and history behind the biblical book. Some of
the very useful illustrations include: Tiglath-pileser III (p. 4); a family
and their oxen taken prisoner from Lachish (p. 5); an ancient butter churn
(p. 42) to illustrate the passage speaking about curds and honey; the
six-winged figure from Tel Halaf to illustrate the six-winged seraphim of
Isa 6 (p. 35); the pictures of Lachishs defeat at the hands of Sennacherib
(pp. 12223); and pig bones from Tell es-Safi to illustrate the offensive
offerings described in Isa 66:3 (p. 187). Having said that, there are a few
things that could help the reader have a better understanding of the ideas
this book is trying to present.
First, sometimes it is unclear why certain pictures were included
or at least placed where they are. This could be improved by more
consistency between the text and some of the illustrations and provide a
more detailed description of the illustrations used. For example, why is
the very first illustration a picture of Sargon? Would not a picture of
Sennacherib or possibly Cyrus be more appropriate at the beginning of a
commentary of Isaiah? But at the very least include a more detailed
explanation as to why Sargon would be important. Another, lesser
example of inconsistency appears on page 8, which features an
illustration of horses feeding at a manger; however, chapter 1 does not
mention horses, but does refer to a donkey and a bull knowing his
masters manger. However, to be fair, sometimes they do an excellent
job of showing the connections, like on page 21 where they use the
words trading ships in both the text and the illustration. Another place
where they clearly show the connection is on page 25 where they have
the Allegory of the Vineyard (5:1-7) and right under it the picture of
winemaking from ancient Egypt.
Second, the endnotes are very complete and contain a great deal
of helpful information. But because of their placement at the end of the
book, it is very cumbersome for the reader to access them, especially
BOOK REVIEWS
103
when there are 1,466. It would be far easier for the reader if each note
were to appear on the page where it is actually referenced.
Third, sometimes it is hard to make the connection as to how a
particular cultural example helps us to understand the text better. For
example, how does the Ugaritic incantation on page 110 help us to
understand the bread of adversity? Or how does the comment about a
Neo-Assyrian seal that depicts a god standing on the back of a horse help
enlighten the passage in Isaiah 66:20 where the remnant is returning by
horses (p. 188)? At first it is difficult to see the connection between the
picture of Ashurnasirpal standing by a sacred tree (p.16) and the context
of Isaiah 1:29 which speaks about the trees on the high places that they
have desired; but the general description that follows helps link them
somewhat. The explanation given concerning Isaiah 49:16 suggesting
that this passage does not mean ownership, but a plan for the
reconstructed city as illustrated by the inscribed brick from the palace in
Larsa, is unconvincing (p. 163). Also many examples intended to
illustrate a passage come from significantly different time periods. For
example, on page 9, the Old Babylonian text describing the medicinal
use of oil dates at least 1,000 years earlier. One would hope that in 1,000
years they would have learned much more about the healing properties of
oil; for example, frankincense or other spices may have been augmented
with oil (Tutankhamen [1336-1327] had frankincense placed in his burial
tomb). Having said that, sometimes there is simply a lack of specific
information from the ancient Near East and there is little we can do about
that.
Though most of the vocabulary in this book is geared to the lay
reader, there are certain technical terms that should be defined: extispicy
(prophesying future events by using animal entrails, p. 138);
xenophobia (fear of another nation, p. 166); and Demotic script (a
stage in Egyptian writing, p. 184).
There are also a few needed corrections, such as on page 20 the
impression is technically from a stamp seal, not a cylinder seal. The
depiction of the weighing of the heart on page 29 could use further
explanation so that the reader can more fully understand the illustration:
if the heart is not equal in weight to the feather of truth, it will be
devoured by Ammit (devourer or soul-eater).
There is no doubt that this book fills a niche for the lay reader
that is largely untouched and its numerous illustrations and some of the
cultural materials are invaluable. However, as a commentary for biblical
studies students, it does not provide enough discussion of the text of
Isaiah to be required as the main textbook. Thus it is more likely to be
104
relegated to supplemental reading in the library as opposed to a required

textbook.
PAUL WEGNER
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Journey to Joy: The Psalms of Ascent by Josh Moody. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway, 2013, 181 pp., US $14.99, softcover.
Journey to Joy is a psalm-by-psalm exploration of the main themes of the
Psalms of Ascent (Pss 120134), with a keen eye for how these themes
have significance for ones spiritual life in the twenty-first century. Its
author, Josh Moody, is the senior pastor of College Church, in Wheaton,
Illinois. He is a former pioneer missionary to Georgia and Azerbaijan,
and did his doctoral work at the University of Cambridge, where he
wrote about Jonathan Edwards and the Enlightenment. He is also well
published, having edited the volume Jonathan Edwards and Justification
(Crossway, 2012), with three other books: No Other Gospel: 31 Reasons
from Galatians Why Justification by Faith Alone is the Only Gospel
(Crossway, 2011), The God-Centered Life: Insights from Jonathan
Edwards for Today (IVP UK, 2006), and Authentic Spirituality
(Kingsway, 2000). The author emerges as passionate about contemporary
Christian spirituality and its vitality in the church today. His experience
with the Psalms appears to be more pastoral than academic.
Moody approaches the Psalms as a collection of poetry which is
meant to help us put our feelings in the right place (p. 14). By this, he
means that psalms are tools which help us to feel truly the truth, giving
us a place to express and bring our emotions into line with Gods will
and Gods way. He colloquially calls his approach to the Psalms
Psalmnotherapya fitting termas he has a broad therapeutic and
existential concern for ones own personal journey towards God and
ones experience of God through the Psalms. This approach is also
apparent in how Moody understands the historical context of the Psalms.
After reviewing several speculated historical settings (p. 1415), he
advocates the idea that these fifteen psalms were arranged in a
purposeful order, designed to challenge the emotional feeling of the
worshipper as she journeys towards Jerusalem or God. One may agree or
disagree with him, but the advantage of this setting is somewhat
convenient for his aims.
BOOK REVIEWS
105
The book is structured much like the Psalms of Ascent

themselves. After a brief preface, each of the fifteen chapters is devoted
to one of the fifteen psalms. A thematic title has been given to every
chapter matching his exposition of the psalm. For example, chapter 1 is
called Peace (Ps 120), while chapter 9 is titled, The Blessing of
Family (Ps 128). Chapters are roughly ten pages in length, well-suited
for their intended purpose as daily devotionals. Moody seems to have
used this material within the church he pastors, and writes for a typical
American, conservative evangelical Christian. Structurally, each chapter
follows the same template. The full psalm is printed at the beginning of
the chapter, using the English Standard Version. This is followed by a
few page introduction to the theme explored in the chapter. The
remaining section of the chapter is an expository walk through of the
psalm, usually taking one or two verses at a time.
There are a few tendencies of each chapter that were somewhat
striking to me, and hint towards an underlying problem for the book,
which may simply be true of devotional books generally. The aim of
every chapter is to point out a potential problem in our contemporary
spiritual experience, and then show how the psalm was designed to
address that specific problem. An example comes from the third chapter
on Ps 122, a chapter which Moody thematically summarizes as church.
For him, the value of the psalm is the analogy between the love that an
Israelite was to have towards Jerusalem and the love a Christian is to
have towards the church. Both Jerusalem and the church provide a place
for loving community, fulfilling a deep need for connectiona place
where not only Gods people can connect, but also where God and his
people meet. In his exposition of the psalm, Moody shows how this
theme connects to the two main ideas of the psalm: resisting
individualism (vv. 14), and rejecting cynicism (vv. 59). While these
two points are important words to hear in the contemporary church,
Moody did not make it clear just how different our contemporary
experience is from that of ancient Israel. For instance, in the first half of
the psalm, Moody does not acknowledge that our modern view of
individualism finds no parallel in ancient Israel. It is simply not true that
the first part of this psalm is a very clear rejection of any individualistic
notion of what it means to have a relationship with God (p. 43). Such an
idea could have never crossed the psalmists mind, and no attempt is
made to show how cultural notions of individuality and community in
the ancient world are related to our modern views. Similarly, in the
second half of the psalm it is the author who rejects cynicism, not the
psalmist himself. Certainly, cynicism may have been a response to the
worshipful affirmations of the psalm, but a number of other reactions
could have also existed. The problem is that Moody makes it seem like
106
the psalmist wrote the psalm to confront these particular twenty-first

century concerns. Similar concerns were also found in other chapters.
To conclude, Moody is certainly a wonderful communicator. He
is able to connect well with the reader in each chapter, as his introductory
sections draw in the reader. What he has to say for the church is quite
helpful, and I found myself on my own journey of theological reflection
as I read through the book. But given the concerns above, I would also
recommend supplementing this book with a close study of the Psalms
using other commentaries or guides. With that caveat, I would
recommend this book for use in the contemporary church.
ANDREW WITT
Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto
From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the

Historiography of Israels Settlement in Canaan by Koert van Bekkum.
Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 45. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2011. xxi + 691 pp., US $249.45, hardcover.
A lightly revised version of his 2010 doctoral dissertation completed
under the supervision of G. Kwakkel at the Theologische Universiteit
Kampen, van Bekkums From Conquest to Coexistence is an ambitious
project. It explores in significant detail the plausibility of the historical
truth-claims of Joshua 9:113:7 by appreciating [this sections] literary
forms and ideology and by bringing the historical implications of this
text into dialogue with the relevant artefactual evidence (p. 594). Van
Bekkums choice of Josh 9:113:7 as his focus text is motivated by the
fact that this section comprises a clear textual unit, presents a unified
conquest, is of a style that can be compared to non-biblical conquest
accounts, and names more than thirty conquered cities, which makes the
unit more suitable for the interdisciplinary dialogue with the artefactual
evidence than a passage like Josh 68, which tells about the conquest of
only two cities with a disputed archaeological reputation, namely Jericho
and Ai (p. 91). The volume is structured in four parts.
Part I, Text and Artefact (pp. 792), addresses a number of
issues surrounding the much debated topic of Israels conquest
of/emergence in Canaan. Importantly, along the way van Bekkum lays
out a clear understanding of history writing as a kind of representational
art in which artistic construction, simplification, selectivity and
suggestive detail are not merely literary embellishments within some
BOOK REVIEWS
107
referential constraints, but essential elements in the way narrative

historiography works (p. 36). This conviction leads van Bekkum to a
three-stage methodological approach to biblical texts: (1) study literary
artistry and genre conventions; (2) formulate and define historical truthclaims; (3) test truth-value by bringing the results into dialogue with
artefactual evidence (pp. 3637). With all this the present reviewer is in
hearty agreement (cf. my Art of Biblical History, 1994). What
distinguishes van Bekkums volume is not only the soundness of his
approach but its thoroughness. Recognizing that historical analysis
requires that text and artefact be brought into dialogue only after
each is thoroughly investigated in its own right, van Bekkum shapes the
remainder of his volume accordingly.
Part II, Monologue of Text (pp. 95423), offers a linguistic
and literary analysis of Josh 9:113:7, including a meticulous, annotated
translation as well as separate chapters on synchronic and diachronic
concerns. This textual work leads van Bekkum to formulate an
historiographical hypothesis that the text under consideration is,
indeed, full of artistic construction, selectivity and suggestive detail
mirroring the aims and beliefs of its scribes and is a transmitted, not a
found, text, but all the same constitutes genuine ancient historiography
composed by scribes who respected their oral and textual sources (p.
411). On the question of provenance, van Bekkum avers that this piece
of ancient Hebrew historiography [was likely] composed in Judah
between the late 10th and the early 8th century B.C.E. with [the] help of
Late Bronze memories (p. 575; cf. pp. 40910).
Part III, Monologue of Artefact (pp. 427572), comprises a
thorough-going review of cities and regions mentioned in Josh 9:113:7.
The archaeological exploration, as van Bekkum notes is not purely
independent and objective, inasmuch as the selection of sites under
discussion is given by the text and the period under review is marked
out by the historiographical hypothesis (p. 427) formulated in Part II.
This being so, van Bekkum is scrupulous in treating the archaeological
data on their own terms and in their own contexts. Additionally, regular
sections addressing the regional perspective provide a broader
perspective. Two of the more controversial sites with respect to the
biblical account of Israels entry into Canaan, i.e. Jericho and Ai, do not
figure into van Bekkums textual unit and so receive only the occasional
passing comment that they are problematical. He sensibly suggests that
discussion of the archaeology of the Book of Joshua should, in any case,
not rest on only two sites but on the other 31 identified locations
mentioned within the boundaries of the Cisjordanian conquered land of
Joshua 9:113:7 (p. 461). His survey of these sites is commendably
detailed, especially considering the necessary breadth of his project. In
108
the course of his survey, van Bekkum cautiously addresses a number of

controversial issues such as Finkelsteins proposed low chronology,
the dating of the famous gates at Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo, Eilat
Mazars large stone structure in Jerusalem, the proliferation of Central
Hill Country villages in Iron I, and others.
In Part IV, Dialogue of Text and Artefact (pp. 575592), van
Bekkum harvests the fruit of his labours. While recognizing that
problems remain with Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon (only the latter of which is
treated in any depth), he concludes that the overall pattern is quite
positive, in particular in view of correlations between archaeological
excavations and the Egyptian New Kingdom texts describing Asiatic
campaigns. He concludes that the possibility of some late 10th or 9th
century B.C.E. scribes writing about the conquest of the land by a group
called Israel during the Late Bronze Age cannot be ruled out from an
archaeological point of view (p. 579). Indeed, for van Bekkum, the
overall pattern of historical truth-claims of Joshua 9:113:7a story
going from conquest to coexistenceoffers the best explanation of
the complex archaeological picture (pp. 58485). In short, there is no
considerable distance between story and history (p. 592).
There is much to commend in this sensible and erudite volume,
but it is not without its minor flaws. A fair number of typos,
grammatical/syntactical mistakes, malaprops, non-standard spellings
(e.g., Rehabeam and Jerobeam [p. 402]), and instances of DutchEnglish (e.g., the occasional occurrence of en in place of and, or of
the uncommon decennia in place of decades) managed to survive the
editing process. Given the complexity of the volume, such survivors are,
perhaps, to be expected, but given the importance of the volume, it is too
bad that they hinder the reading process slightly. These minor flaws
aside, the volume is very attractively produced with helpful maps and
illustrations sprinkled throughout, and with an extensive bibliography
and excellent indices. An added bonus is an epilogue in which van
Bekkum offers a brief account of who he is, where he stands on certain
philosophical and theological issues, why he has chosen to avoid
unhelpful terms such as maximalist and minimalist, and so forth.
Understanding amongst those engaged in debates surrounding Israels
history and historiography would be enhanced if more scholars were
similarly self-aware and forthcoming.
In a day and age in which there is too much to read and long
books in particular are daunting, perhaps the best way to conclude this
review is to say that I am glad to have read this long book. It is a wellconceived, thoroughly researched, well-ordered and executed, packed
with useful information, and duly cautious and sensible in its judgments.
BOOK REVIEWS
109
It is a book that I shall keep on my shelf and return to often, especially

for its archaeological summaries.
V. PHILIPS LONG
Regent College, Vancouver
Jerusalem and the Nations: Studies in the Book of Isaiah by Ronald E.

Clements. Hebrew Bible Monographs 16. Sheffield: Phoenix Press,
2011. xii + 248 pp., US $90.00, hardcover.
R. E. Clements is a well-known commentator on the Hebrew Bible,
having contributed commentaries on Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel, as well as his Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach. This
collection of essays focuses on the development of the book of Isaiah,
and more specifically, on the Assyrian invasion of 701 B.C. Clements is
revisiting his Isaiah and the Deliverance of Israel (JSOT, 1980),
updating and occasionally modifying some of his views. Studies on the
Assyrian invasion usually focus on historical problems presented by the
various siege reports of Jerusalem and Hezekiahs survival. Clements
maintains that failure to recognize the literary and theological aspects of
the deliverance of Jerusalem prevents the reader from fully appreciating
the story in the context of the collection of prophecies in the book of
Isaiah.
This first part of the book concerns the formation of the book of
Isaiah. Clements comments in a later chapter that Isaiah must be
considered one of the most complicated writings in the Hebrew Bible (p.
226). Few scholars read the book as coming from a single, eighthcentury prophet, and even the idea of a simple scheme of two Isaiahs is
difficult to maintain. Clements sees the prophetic books as piecemeal
assemblages put together from a number of ancient documents (p. 9).
The main purpose of assembling the prophetic books was to present an
overall picture of Gods plan and purpose for Israel (p. 5). But he would
resist calling a book like Isaiah an anthology since there is a careful plan
and structure to the book.
Recent studies on the prophets have suggested that later writers
interpreted the words of a prophet in light of new situations, so that
prophecy became a living dialogue between God and Israel (p. 13). In
current prophetic studies this dialogue is often called intertextualitya
popular term in biblical studies that ought to be defined carefully.
Clements points out that his view of intertextuality in Isaiah is not merely
word-games, but a serious attempt to re-read older prophecy and apply it
110
to new situations. As the prophecy moved from spoken word to written

books, the words of the prophet would naturally be understood in light of
present realities.
The most obvious historical reality for the prophetic books of
the Hebrew Bible is the fall of Jerusalem. Unlike the Assyrian invasion
in 701 B.C., God did not protect the city in 587 B.C., and thus the story of
Gods rescue of Jerusalem took on a different complexion later when
the city was destroyed (p. 15). There is perhaps another episode in the
Persian period that forms the background to another re-reading of the
earlier prophecies of Isaiah. In this final edit of Isaiah, chapters 14 and
6566 were added in response to this conflict. Clements discusses the
evidence for this final edit in chapters 3 and 15. Only Isaiah 535 is in
response to the two political crises of the eighth century. It is likely that
many evangelical readers will not accept Clements discussion of the
formation of a prophetic book since he does not think the whole book
came from an eighth-century prophet named Isaiah.
Since he is suggesting later layers of the book of Isaiah interpret
the earlier ones intertextually, Clements is open to the criticism faced by
intertexual studies. The later interpretations are only valid if the earlier
text is in fact earlier. Clements argues in his third chapter that Isa 14
and 6566 were added in the final edition of the book and that they
interpret the whole book in the light of events at the time of the final edit.
But if it can be shown that these chapters were not the last to be added to
the book, then this re-reading of an earlier Isaiah cannot be maintained.
Someone might argue that chapters 14 come from the original eighthcentury prophet, not a Persian-era prophetic editor. Intertextuality works
best when applied to separate books that are clearly datable, or better
still, the New Testament use of the Hebrew Bible. Within a smaller
canon like Isaiah, it is much more difficult to prove which text is the
earliest in order to determine the direction of the intertextual link.
The second section of the book (chs. 610) focuses specifically
on the Assyrian invasion of 701 B.C. Some elements of the story told in 2
Kings, Isaiah, and the Sennacherib Chronicle are certain (for example:
Sennacherib invaded Judah but Jerusalem was not destroyed). The main
problem is the biblical claim that the Angel of the Lord destroyed much
of Sennacheribs army. The biblical material sees this as a divine
intervention to preserve the kingdom of Judah, while the Assyrian
records simply do not explain why Sennacherib did not destroy
Jerusalem. Clements argues the miraculous rescue story developed over a
long period of time in response to growing threats to Judah in the sixth
century B.C. (p. 81). The theology of the story is that Mesopotamian
imperialism is a direct attack on Yahwehs authority over Judah. When
BOOK REVIEWS
111
the Assyrians invaded, God miraculously defended his city Jerusalem.

When the story is told in the sixth century, Jerusalem is threatened by
Babylon, another blasphemous Mesopotamian empire. Clements
suggests the story of Gods deliverance influenced the disastrous policies
of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. The final form, however, consciously
contrasts the events of 701 (preservation of the nation) with the events of
587 (p. 82).
Clements interprets some of the Oracles of Woe (Isa 28:131:9)
in the context of the political uncertainty just prior to the Assyrian
invasion, but others seem to reflect a time after the invasion. Reliance on
Egypt as a worthless illusion is a main theme of the unit and the prophet
warns against any alliance with Assyria. Both were options for Hezekiah
prior to the crisis, but after the miraculous delivery of Jerusalem, reliance
on God is the only real option. Clements once argued that the collection
of messages was perhaps made in the sixth century during the
nationalistic revivals of Josiahs reign. Now he sees these chapters as
part of the original eighth-century prophetic material (a so-called Isaiah
Memoir), albeit edited and revised in the light of later events (p. 97).
The third section of the book examines Isaiah in the light of a
Persian context, although the essays are not as cohesive as those in the
second section of the book. Chapters 1114 are reprinted articles dealing
with specific texts. Chapter 12 concerns Isa 14:2227. Two chapters
study elements of the servant songs: Isa 53 and the restoration of Israel
(ch. 12) and the light to the nations (ch. 13). In chapter 14 Clements
suggests that the symbol of Zion-Jerusalem is an intertextual link
between the two major sections of the book. Rather than looking for two
sequential prophetic calling experiences in either half of the book,
Clements suggests that the central theme of Zion links the halves. Just as
God delivered Zion in the past, so too, will he rescue Zion again in the
future.
In chapter 15 Clements builds on many of the observations found
in the book and suggests Isa 1:131 functions as an introduction to the
book. He has already argued that Isa 535 form the earliest unit of Isaiah,
and many scholars now follow Marvin Sweeney, who argued chapters 1
4 are an introduction to Isaiah. Clements sees chapters 24 as a selfcontained unit that he calls The Little Book of Zion. The confident
hope of a restored Zion is threatened in this introductory message as the
leaders of Israel are described as rebels and are threatened with
destruction.
In conclusion, this collection of essays is a valuable contribution
to the study of Isaiah. It is always convenient for essays originally
published in obscure festschrifts to be collected and reprinted, but the
essays produced specifically for this book are what make this volume
112
particularly valuable. Despite the cogency of his arguments, Clements

will likely not convince some evangelicals on aspects of the formation of
prophetic books like Isaiah. Nevertheless, his observations on the final,
canonical form of Isaiah are excellent and ought to be integrated into any
serious study of the book of Isaiah.
PHILLIP J. LONG
Grace Bible College
Psalms 12: Gateway to the Psalter by Robert L. Cole. Hebrew Bible

Monographs 37. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2013. ix + 182 pp., US $80.00,
hardcover.
In this monograph Robert Cole follows up on his published dissertation,
The Shape and Message of Book III (Pss.7389) (Sheffield Academic,
2000) by studying the first two Psalms as a canonical introduction to the
entire Psalter. What sets this study apart from other similar monographs
is Coles application of his method to the third Psalm. After providing a
close analysis of Pss 12 in order to show that they are intended to be
read as an introduction to the book, he examines Ps 3 in order to show
that there are verbal and thematic connections between the first three
Psalms. Cole argues that the canonical arrangement of the first three
Psalms is intentional. Furthermore, Cole argues that the first two Psalms
have broader connections to other canonical seams in the Psalter as well
as connections to the canonical arrangement of the Hebrew Bible.
As his first chapter makes clear, the notion that the first two
Psalms are an introduction to the whole Psalter is not a new idea. In his
exhaustive literature survey, Cole shows that while many previous
writers have spoken of Pss 12 as an introduction to book of Psalms, few
see the fundamental and irreconcilable opposition that exists between a
serious grappling with the canonical shape of the Psalter and Gunkels
explicit rejection of it (p. 44). In fact, a major motivation for Cole is his
rejection of form critical categories since these categories obscure the
canonical shape of the Psalter. He concludes that Gunkels rejection of
canonical order is based on the categories of form criticism. Since the
order of the Psalter did not conform to Gunkels own categories, he
rejected any shaping of the Psalter (p. 157).
In chapter 2, Cole examines the details of Ps 1 in order to show
the lexical lineages to Ps 2, as well as many other links to canonical
seams in the Psalter. For example, Pss 1:2 and 40:9 [ET 40:8] both
BOOK REVIEWS
113
feature delighting in the will of God and his Torah. Cole identifies this
as an inclusio across the initial division of the Psalter (p. 61). He
examines the structure of the psalm, pointing out the minimal acrostic
pattern and clear structural features marking it off as a clear unit. He then
provides a detailed commentary on the psalm in which he detects a
number of close parallels to Josh 1:78. While he follows the work of
Botha on intertextuality and Ps 1, Cole does not describe the parallels
between Ps 1 and Josh 1 as an intertextual relationship, although one
could easily use the term. In both contexts there is an admonition to
meditate on the Torah both day and night as well as a promise of success
for the man who makes such a commitment.
For Cole, the one who is to meditate on the Law day and night
is the ruler of the people. Since Ps 1 was described by Gunkel as a
wisdom psalm, the verbal connections to Ps 2 were obscured. By
connecting the righteous man of Ps 1 to Josh 1:78, Cole can argue that
Ps 1 is more like a royal psalm, providing further evidence of a
connection to Ps 2. But he goes beyond this by suggesting that Ps 1 looks
forward to a future, conquering king in the pattern of Joshuathe
monarch of Ps 2. Psalm 1 is a description of an eschatological future in
which the wicked will be destroyed and the righteous will be preserved
(p. 78). He finds support for this eschatological reading of the Psalm in
the shape of the Hebrew Canon, where Malachi is immediately followed
by Ps 1. He offers a number of lexical and thematic parallels between
Mal 3 and Ps 1 (p. 73). In fact, with Josh 1:78 as the introduction to the
Prophets and Mal 3 as the conclusion, these themes form an inclusio for
the Prophets as well as an introduction to the Psalter.
Cole provides a similar analysis of Ps 2 in chapter 3. While Ps 2
is certainly different than Ps 1, there is ample evidence of purposeful
juxtaposition of the two. Cole provides a comprehensive list of the verbal
links between Ps 1 and 2. Like the first Psalm, Ps 2 has a number of
overt verbal connectors appearing in the canonical seams of the Psalter
(42, 72, and 89) as well as the conclusion to the book (Pss 14650).
Having shown the close links between Pss 1 and 2 as well as
numerous lexical links to the other canonical seams in the psalter, Cole
examines Ps 3 in his final chapter to show that this Psalm takes up
further topics raised by the first two psalms (p. 163). He provides
numerous verbal links as well as thematic links such as the human King
David threatened by his enemies. The fate of the enemies in both psalms
is similar, for example, and both Ps 2 and 3 begin with similar questions
(why? how long?). This reading of Ps 3 in the light of the first two
psalms has been obscured by Gunkels dismissal of a purposeful
arrangement of the Psalter as well as his description of Ps 1 as a wisdom
psalm and Ps 2 as a royal psalm. The verbal and thematic connections
114
between Pss 12 and Ps 3 indicate that the Psalters order deserves, like
any other book, to be seriously considered on its own merits (p. 157).
This conclusion is not unlike Gerald Wilsons The Editing of the
Hebrew Psalter (Scholars, 1985). Coles motivation to move the study of
the canonical shape of the Psalter out of the long shadow of Gunkel is
commendable and he is able to assemble a great deal of evidence from
Pss 13 for the canonical shaping of the Psalter. But Coles monograph
is only a first step in the exploration of the formation of the Psalter. As
Cole concludes, a similar detailed study of each Psalm is required in
order to determine how they were intentionally arranged.
PHILLIP J. LONG
Grace Bible College
Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament by John
D. Currid. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. 153 pp., US $17.99, softcover.
Awareness of the similarities between ancient Near Eastern literature and
the Old Testament is growing in popular culture. More and more
programming on television, not to mention internet sources, addresses
topics of archaeological and ancient textual interest. This comparative
material rarely receives comment in the context of teaching and
preaching in todays evangelical churches. As a consequence, most
Christians, especially young people engaged in university studies, are
clueless what to think when they first encounter these similarities. Currid
writes for this audience, offering a work that is introductory and,
therefore, is designed for those who know little about the topic of
polemical theology (p. 10). He is careful to note that polemics are not
the only relationship between the Old Testament and ancient Near
Eastern backgrounds (p. 141); but this is a dominant literary technique
underlying much of the biblical text. His book, therefore, is a help for
educating the church and broader culture.
Chapter 1 provides a cursory outline of the history of ancient
Near Eastern studies and its relationship to the field of biblical studies
(p. 11). This overview captures the essential movements in clear and
helpful fashion. Currid could have been more careful, however, when
addressing current discussions within evangelical studies. His one
paragraph describing accommodationist hermeneutics lumps together
Peter Enns and John Walton. He concludes that such scholars do not
recognize, to any great degree, the foundational differences between [Old
BOOK REVIEWS
115
Testament theology and ancient world perspectives] (p. 23). This

representation is unfair to the diversity within the evangelical guild as
well as the clear statements by such comparativists regarding significant
worldview differences. Perhaps some reductionism is necessary in this
sort of cursory treatment, but I think more care is necessary when
representing others who are personally close to the tradition of the
intended audience. Personal reputations aside, the complexity of this
issue deserves a more thorough and nuanced introduction for the
uninitiated (later discussion in chapter 3 notwithstanding).
Chapter 2 defines polemics: Polemical theology is the use by
biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in
ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new
meaning (p. 25). Further discussion in this chapter clarifies this
definition when Currid highlights that polemics demonstrate essential
distinctions between Hebrew thought and ancient Near Eastern beliefs
and practices (p. 26). The remaining pages of this chapter illustrate this
definition with a few simple examples, thereby setting the stage for indepth treatment of more complex cases in the chapters that follow.
Genesis 1 and ANE creation accounts are the topic of chapter 3.
Currid contrasts his own view not only with that of the older panbabylonianism represented by Delitzsch, but also with Peter Enns, John
Walton, and Bruce Waltke, who, in his terms, illustrate a recent
evangelical trend to drift and wane on opposition to older critical
perspectives (p. 34). In particular, he is concerned about affirmations that
the Old Testament accommodates itself to an ancient Near Eastern view
of the cosmos while only demythologizing the polytheistic religious
associations. Such a posture in his view differs little from Delitzsch.
Having lumped these evangelicals with Delitzsch, Currid critiques the
whole position:
It undervalues and undercuts the originality and exceptional
nature of the Hebrew world-and-life view. Thus sits the question
in a nutshell: is the Hebrew creation account distinct thought at
its very core or not? Is it merely another ancient Near Eastern
myth that has been cleansed, or is it a radical, unique
cosmogonical view? Or is it something in between? (p. 35)
This frames the question, but unfortunately, Currid never answers it
clearly. When he analyzes key differences between the Bible and ancient
Near Eastern accounts, he notes the unique transcendence of the Bibles
Creator-God, ex-nihilo creation, the dignity of humanitys purpose in the
Bible, and the means by which Israels God creates in contrast to the
diverse portraits of other ancient accounts. These surely are radical
116
differences in biblical theology. But in the end, it seems that his radical
distinctions are not much different than the views expressed by
evangelicals whom he has criticized. There is disagreement on whether
ex-nihilo creation is clear in Gen 1 (exegetically, it is only inferential),
but all evangelicals with whom I am familiar would affirm creation exnihilo at the level of biblical theology, even if needing to draw from
outside of Gen 1 to do so. His mention of creation by word in the
Memphite theology needs more elaboration, as this is a key similarity
that often shocks people on first encounter. His contrast on page 46 could
be strengthened by the observation that in this text, the creator-god, Ptah,
is himself identified with the cosmic waters (compound name Ptah-Nun).
Chapter 4 treats the flood account, chapter 5 the spurned
seductress motif in the Joseph narrative, and chapter 6 the similarities
between the birth of Moses and stories of other persecuted children who
rise to fame and power. Currids expansion of discussion in chapter 6
beyond the Sargon legend to include Egyptian and Hittite stories is
particularly helpful. Chapter 7 compares the flight of Moses to Midian
with the Story of Sinuhe. Currid maintains that both utilize a well-known
exile-return motif, only rather than Moses longing for Egypt and
Pharaohs court, he exhibits the opposite of the expected Egyptian
virtues. Whether the ancient audience would have reflexively thought
of Sinuhe when hearing the Moses story is questionable in my judgment,
but the polemical commentary by Exodus on Egyptian values espoused
by Sinuhe would have been stark.
Chapter 8 introduces a little known parallel (p. 97), indeed
new to me. A line in the Egyptian Book of the Heavenly Cow reports
the words of Re: I am that I am. I will not let them take action (p. 100;
referring to humanitys rebellion in The Destruction of Mankind).
Following the lead of Egyptologists Hornung and Fecht, Currid argues
that since both the Egyptian text (Egyptian ywy ymy) and Exod 3:14
(ehyeh asher ehyeh) use the idem per idem formula with similar sound,
morphology, and semantic intent, there is an intertextual play between
Exodus and the Egyptian text. Each reader will need to judge the merits
of this interesting suggestion. The parallel is not close phonetically or
morphologically (contra Currid), but a semantic similarity is there.
Nevertheless, the cogency of any proposed literary allusion is dependent
upon the target audiences sphere of relevance. For me, the association
remains doubtful. The possibility that Yahwehs speech co-opted the
words of Re is difficult in that it assumes a Semitic audience would
appreciate this very subtle, semantic allusion. Currids preferred
explanation, that a Pharaoh polemicized against the name Yahweh (p.
107, 109), is more problematic, since even Currid recognizes that the
BOOK REVIEWS
117
Book of the Heavenly Cow most likely pre-dates Moses (p. 98). Even
if not of Middle Egyptian origin, the appearance of this text in the tomb
of Seti I precludes the possibility if Moses dates to the thirteenth century.
For this suggestion to work, the explication of the divine name using the
idem per idem formula must have existed alongside the name itself in
patriarchal times.
Chapters 9 and 10 consider the Rod of Moses and the parting of
the Red Sea, respectively. As one might have already observed, most of
Currids discussions engages polemics involving Egyptian background.
Considering the preponderance of attention usually given to Canaanite
and Mesopotamian background, this welcome treatment redresses an
imbalance for those already familiar with Old Testament polemics.
However, the final chapter (ch. 10) does offer concise discussion of
several commonly recognized polemics against Canaanite religion.
In sum, I find helpful discussion in Currids book. Explanations
are basic and clear (well-suited to the intended audience). One may wish
for more extensive discussion or inclusion of other examples, but given
the nature of the target audience and the subject matter, this book is of
good length (i.e., brief). It can be read tolerably by a popular audience,
hopefully whetting the appetite for more comparative study that similarly
enriches ones understanding and appreciation of the message of the Old
Testament.
JOHN W. HILBER
Grand Rapids Theological Seminary
Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Approaches and

Convergence edited by Susan Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013. xix + 271 pp., US $125.00, hardcover.
This volume assembles the published papers originally presented at a
conference on the Psalter at Worcester College, Oxford, in the fall of
2010. The contributors represent scholars from both Jewish and Christian
traditions. Throughout the collection the scholars from each tradition
respond to one another. The varieties of scholarly traditions draw out the
very conflict and even convergence alluded to in the subtitle.
The work contains an introduction by Susan Gillingham,
followed by 20 essays divided into three parts, and concludes with three
indexes (i.e., names, subject, psalms). The work also includes 16 full
color plates. The range of topics and the interaction between scholars
118
make this collection a fruitful addition to the current state of Psalms

studies.
The first part of the volume, Jewish and Christian Responses to
the Psalms, includes 10 essays. This part reflects the convergence of
ideas between Jewish and Christian scholars. The first six essays show a
collaborative effort and exchange between the presenters. The first two
essays, Peter W. Flints The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, and Geza
Vermess Reflections on the Canon and the Text of the Bible, suggest
the idea that there was not a uniform or Urtext for the Psalter. Both of
these scholars, especially Flint, work through multiple Psalms
manuscripts from the Judean desert to point to textual elasticity,
variant readings, and different ordering of individual psalms as the
rationale for challenging the assumption of an original Hebrew Psalter.
The second round of essays in Part 1 consists of Adele Berlins
paper Medieval Answers to Modern Questions, followed by Corinna
Krtings response Medieval Psalms Exegesis as a Challenge to
Modern Exegesis. Berlins paper was a delight to read. As a means of
representing the nuances of medieval exegetes, Berlin presented an
imagined interview with Saadi, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and David Qimhi.
Krtings response attempted to establish how modern exegetes struggle
with the same issues as their medieval counterpartscultural situation,
tradition, and the relationship and understanding of divine and human
language within the Psalter.
The third round of essays in Part 1 consists of two essays
focused on the reception history of Ps 137 within both Jewish and
Christian traditions. Susan Gillinghams essay surveys the reception of
this psalm in both traditions throughout the centuries. She suggested that
the psalm does not lend itself to either a David-centered reading or a
Christ-centered reading (p. 79). Thus, this psalm is an illustration of a
life-centered approach to the Psalter, whereby the I of the psalm is
anyone who maintains integrity of faith even when the going is hard
(p. 80). Jonathan Magonet expands upon the previous essay and suggests
the implications of the closing section of the psalmthe expression of
anger and curseswhen incorporated into a holistic reading.
The final four essays in Part 1 are Elizabeth Solopovas The
Liturgical Psalter in Medieval Europe, Aaron Rosens True Lights:
Seeing the Psalms through Chagalls Church Windows, David
Mitchells How Can We Sing the Lords Song? Deciphering the
Masoretic Cantillation, and John Sawyers The Psalms in Judaism and
Christianity. All four of the essays focus on either the use of the psalms
in art or in music and how these observations can assist in creating
dialogue between Christianity and Judaism. Mitchells essay was a joy to
BOOK REVIEWS
119
read and the insights he provided were interesting. I would venture a

guess that many scholars of the Psalter have experienced the awareness
of the absence of music as they read the Psalms, and have even asked
the question, Where is the tune? (p. 119). Mitchell surveyed the
cantillation system of Hak-Vantoura and provided a full transcription
with musical notations for Pss 23, 95, and 122. I am not trained in music;
however, I am currently working on a project with a church musician. I
am providing translations for some key psalms and pointing out how I
believe the Masoretic accents may function to establish lines that may
prove useful for putting these psalms to music. Mitchells essay opened
the door for further research as to how to bring the words of the Psalter
into the music of the modern church (it may be more correct to say, bring
the singing of the Psalter back into the church).
The second major section Reading the Psalter includes six
essays. These essays return to the format of a paper from one tradition
followed by a response from the other. In the essay The Psalter as
Theodicy Writ Large, Bill Bellinger suggested that the questions raised
by the trouble and woe of exile and its aftermath as pervading all the
parts of the Psalter (p. 157). For Bellinger the idea of theodicy is
expressed in the issues of the kingship of Yahweh and the tradition of
protest expressed in Books Four and Five. Thus, the approach of
interpreting the Psalter as a book can have a major impact on a reading
community, especially one attempting to understand the relationship
between faith and reality, whether in the Jewish or Christian tradition.
Dirk Human responded to Bellinger in his essay The Psalter and
Theodicy: Perspectives Related to a Rhetorical Approach.
The next set of essays represents different approaches to reading
the Psalter as a book. Klaus Seybolds essay The Psalter as a Book
once again brings up the issue of an Urtext. Seybold offers the idea of a
scroll of texts as the first elusive scroll of the book of Psalms (p. 169).
He gives seven suggestions which point to the possibility of a type of
Urtext. In David Howards response to Seybold, The Proto-MT, the
King, and Psalms 1 and 2, he discusses the competing perspectives of
the Psalter of Moses and the Psalter of David brought up by Seybold
(pp. 178, 18587).
The final set of essays in Part 3 consists of Nancy deClaissWalfords paper On Translating the Poetry of the Psalms and Philip
Johnstons paper Traduttore Traditore, Beowulf, and the Psalms.
deClaiss-Walfords essay was, at least in my mind, one of the more
thought-provoking papers. Her insights were developed initially in her
work with the Bible translation project The Voice and the forthcoming
Psalms volume in the NICOT series. Her work in the latter project
brought up four issues, each of which she discusses in detail. Though
120
these issues are not new to anyone who has worked in Hebrew poetry,
her reflections on the translation of certain Hebrew words; the repetition
of Hebrew sounds, verbal roots, and words and phrases; maintaining the
word order of Hebrew poetry; and the use of gender neutral language,
were valuable and to be considered by scholars of the Psalter. Her
insights are providing fodder for the project I previously mentioned
singing the Psalms. Johnstons critique of deClaiss-Walfords paper is
fair and he does find exceptions for most of her suggestions. He seems to
suggest that translation must be on a case-by-case basis. He notes, In
translation there is never a correct version because in a sense we will
always prove the proverb Traduttore traditore (p. 208).
The final part of these collected essays focuses on the Psalms
from the perspective of the past and the present. In two separate papers
John Day and Erhard Gerstenberger deal with the correspondence and
similarities between some of the psalms and other ancient Near Eastern
hymns. Day discusses Ps 104 and Akhenatens Hymn to the Sun.
Gerstenberger opines on the correspondence between Sumerian hymns
and forms in the Psalter. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Till Magnus Steiner
compare the Psalter to a great house in their essay Problems and
Prospects in Psalter Studies. The authors note that the Psalter in its
final form, is complex and cannot be restricted to viewing it in just one
dimension: we encounter several different corridors and floors, and each
offers infinite opportunities for the reception and delivery of different
messages (p. 241). They suggest that the future study of the Psalter must
be one in which synchronic and diachronic study enlighten each other
(pp. 24849). John Barton provides a postscript for these collected
essays. Bartons insightful comment that seems to be a natural
observation from these essays: I am surprised no one has organized a
theology of the Old Testament around the Psalter (p. 259).
The aim of this collection and the conference from which it came
was to open the door for dialogue between the Jewish and Christian
traditions and their understandings of the Hebrew Psalter. The range of
ideas and issues presented in these papers cover the spectrum of
scholarship related to the Psalms. The dialogue, at least in print, was
considerate and constructive. This volume shows, that in many ways,
there is convergence between the traditions. Yet, the conflict, or maybe
differences is a better word, is just as obvious. These collected essays
are a good example of how listening to those from another tradition
could very well advance the scholarship of any given area of biblical
studies.
Any serious scholar or student of the Psalter should read this
work. A Psalms scholar may not be familiar with some of the material in
BOOK REVIEWS
121
the book, such as Chagalls art or musical notations. Any paper in this
volume may just open a door they did not even know was there to be
opened.
JOSHUA E. STEWART
Luther Rice University
Invitation to the Psalms: A Readers Guide for Discovery and

Engagement by Rolf A. Jacobson and Karl N. Jacobson. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2013. 184 pp., US $15.00, softcover.
Rolf Jacobson, associate professor of Old Testament at Luther Seminary,
has written several books, journal articles, and conference papers on the
Psalms throughout his career. His brother, Karl, is an assistant professor
of religion at Augsburg College. Karl has written a study guide on Jonah
for the Book of Faith series published by Augsburg Fortress. In their
previous collaboration, Crazy Book: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of
Biblical Terms, the Jacobson brothers interpret Scripture in an informal
and humorous tone. The purpose of present volume is to teach about the
psalms in a simple way so that believers may learn to read, pray, sing,
shout, chant, and wonder the psalms (p. 2).
The authors present the psalms with a fresh outlook in order to
create a deeper appreciation of the book in the reader. By focusing on the
construction, genres, voice, metaphors, and theology of the psalms, the
reader will gain a better historical understanding of the psalms. This
book is intended for those who have not studied Psalms but are open to
learning the significance of this book and what it means to the rest of the
Bible and its practical application to the Christian life.
Each chapter focuses on a specific aspect of the book of Psalms.
The first chapter covers the basic construction of Hebrew poetry such as
the repetition of certain words, phrases, or ideas in order to emphasize
importance. The authors explain the different kind of parallelisms that
occur in Psalms. Several examples are given throughout the chapter
clarifying the different types of parallels showing diversity among the
composition, message, and theme of the different songs.
Chapters 2 and 3 focus on the different genres. Chapter 2
introduces the idea of the psalms being diverse in their meaning and
message. Much like songs today, the biblical songs of the Bible have
different meanings and purposes. The authors emphasize that the form of
a psalm changes based on its historical context. The Jacobsons explain
the situation, language, and audience for the different songs in the Bible.
122
In Chapter 3, the authors delve deeper into the idea of the types
of genres. They emphasize that other scholars may categorize the psalms
differently, but the genres they choose are royal, enthronement, wisdom,
creation, historical, Zion, imprecatory, penitential, and liturgical. For
every genre, the Jacobsons give examples of the different psalms and
explain why they match the chosen archetype.
Chapter 4 focuses on the voice and life situations of the psalms.
The authors explain that the psalms were not written by the same author
or in the same time period. They also accentuate that a persona or life
situation defines the meaning of a poetical work. The Jacobsons explain
that the psalmists use a particular persona in order to convey a specific
message. By emphasizing the impact of the persona, the Jacobsons allow
the reader to make a more personal connection to the poems. The authors
describe how the message of popular songs today can change based upon
the life situation of the performer because songs will be expressed
differently based upon the experiences of a particular person.
In Chapter 5, the Jacobsons seek to explain to the reader the
significance of metaphors throughout the Psalms. This chapter analyzes
how the metaphors in the Psalms reveal deep biblical truth by using
familiar imagery. God is not a rock, a literal shepherd that tends sheep, or
a massive light. However, metaphors such as rock, shepherd, and light all
explain aspects of Gods personality and his divine power.
Chapter 6 examines the theology of Psalms. The Jacobsons
illustrate how all the psalms ultimately point to Gods faithfulness, love,
and his role in creation. Since God is all of these things then He is
worthy of praise and songs of trust and thanksgiving. The authors
conclude their book by stating that the psalms are not meant to be studied
or analyzed. Ultimately the authors believe that the psalms are meant to
be read, sung, and experienced.
The casual language of the book may bother more advanced
students of the Old Testament. The book also does not engage debates
about various interpretations of Psalms, nor does it interact with the
Hebrew text. However, the authors make clear that this book is not
intended for scholars, but rather for those who are interested in learning
more about the significance of the psalms. Laypeople will appreciate that
the Jacobsons do not use a plethora of theological terms but explain their
arguments in plain language.
This book would also benefit those who may have trouble
reading the psalms because of cultural and literary barriers. Through the
authors explanation of the significance of the literary styles, the reader
will gain a deeper appreciation of the psalms and poetry. Another goal of
this book is to enlighten the reader on how to experience the psalms as
BOOK REVIEWS
123
opposed to simply reading them. One way that the authors engage
readers is that they allow readers to practice writing psalms based on the
types of examples found in the Bible. These exercises allow the reader to
appreciate the psalms in the Bible as a form of artwork. The book also
contains several case studies that examine biblical songs or modern
songs that challenge the reader to understand the voice, audience, or
theme that the writer intended.
This book would assist young students who are interested in
studying the different types of psalms in the Bible. By analyzing the
Scriptures and carefully explaining their significance, the authors shed
light on questions that a reader may have about the Psalms. This book
provides as a general guide through the Psalms that could be used in
either a personal or corporate Bible study. Old Testament professors may
find that this book provides a textbook to use in their classes as a way of
allowing modern students to engage the psalms on a more practical level.
ROBERT BURGESS
Reading with the Faithful: Interpretation of True and False Prophecy in

the Book of Jeremiah from Ancient Times to Modern by Seth B. Tarrer.
Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplement 6. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2013. xi + 209 pp., US $34.95, softcover.
Seth Tarrers Reading with the Faithful is a slightly revised version of his
doctoral dissertation which focuses on representative interpretations of
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and theological works dealing explicitly with the
question of true and false prophecy in an effort to present a sampling of
material from the span of the churchs existence (p. 2). In the desire to
keep his survey brief, he limits his study to the Protestant tradition. His
aim is to determine whether his historical survey might resolve the
current impasse concerning the notion of false prophecy by helping
modern interpreters consider whether those from earlier history might
provide assistance in resolving the issue. His study seeks to answer two
questions: (1) What was at work historically, politically, and personally
in various interpreters attempts to delineate criteria within and
throughout the prophetic books? (p. 3) and (2) in light of modern
pluralism and the effect of historical-critical approaches, is it reasonable
to posit that the need for criteria fell away as the interpretive
environment of the nineteenth and twentieth-centuries was increasingly
marked by a lack of urgency and an increased sense of tolerance (p. 4)?
124
What differentiates Tarrers study from others is his focus on the

issue of false prophecy. He limits his interaction to those who have
written on Jeremiah or false prophecy in the OT. Thus, he covers Jerome
and Theodoret from the early church (ch. 2); the Glossa Ordinaria and
Thomas Aquinas from the medieval period (ch. 3); Calvin from the
Reformation (ch. 4); Hobbes, Spinoza, Vitringa, Calmet, and Thomas
Newton from the Enlightenment era (ch. 5); Seiler, Hengstenberg, Keil,
von Orelli, George Adam Smith, Ewald, Duhm, and Kuenen from the
nineteenth century (ch. 6); von Rad, James Sanders, and Childs from the
twentieth century (until 1986; ch. 7); Brenneman, Lange, and Moberly
from 1986 to the present (ch. 8).
Though the study is more expansive than this review can cover, a
few conclusions are in order. Tarrer argues that the early church and
medieval tradition appealed to some form of association with Jer 28 and
the prophetic warnings in Deut 13 and 18 (p. 4). Prior to the Law, Calvin
saw the main feature of the prophetic office as foretelling future events.
However, with the writing of the Book of the Law, Calvin saw the Law
as the means to interpret prophecy.
With the rise of the Enlightenment, Vitringa and Calmet gave
several criteria by which the prophets revelation should be evaluated.
Spinoza saw morality as the foundation of any true prophet. The
nineteenth century saw the separation between the Prophets and the Law
as the JEDP theory arose and placed the writing of the Law in a postexilic context. Interpreters saw different theological themes as the loci
around which true prophets gathered (e.g. the messianic ideal suggested
by Hengstenberg). Duhm and Kuenen emphasized the discord between
Isaiahs prophecies of salvation and Jeremiahs of judgment. Later
interpreters sought to explain the discord between these two. Von Rad
saw the submission of the prophet to Yahwehs word as the evidence of
true prophecy, and he emphasized the transcendency of Yahweh.
Childss commitment to the shape of the canon forced him to see some
relation between the Prophets and the Law that von Rad failed to
highlight.
In more recent times, Brenneman argues that the criteria for true
and false prophecy is determined by the reader and interpretive
community, thus championing a more postmodern reading of the text (p.
172). Moberly emphasizes Jer 23 to highlight three criteria for
identifying false prophecy: 1) the lack of character in the life of the
prophet, 2) a failure to urge repentance, 3) and the false prophets
absence from the divine council.
Tarrer concludes his study by noting common features that
emerged throughout the history of the literature. He sees traces of
BOOK REVIEWS
125
Aquinas picked up by Calvin as well as commonality between Moberly

and Spinozas assertions about the morality of the prophet. He concludes
by advocating the canonical approach of Childs as the way forward.
Childs make use of redaction criticisms observations concerning the
lack of harmonization, allowing him to ask questions of the text which
pre-moderns did not ask.
Tarrers work deserves a number of commendations. First, he
distills a vast amount of research and history into a concise, informative
survey. Second, he insightfully points out similarities in the history of
interpretation (e.g. Moberly and Spinoza as well as Calvin and Aquinas,
as mentioned above). These similarities show the modern interpreter the
roots of (some) current interpretations, and demonstrate in many ways
that there is nothing new under the sun. Third, he weaves throughout
his work an understanding of the political and historical atmosphere of
each interpreter discussed. A major benefit of the work is that it
maintains clarity of focus in answering the first question posited in the
introduction.
Though the work is successful in achieving many of its purposes,
there are a few minor areas where it could be improved. First, it would
have aided the reader if Tarrer had given even a brief overview of the
texts in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in his introduction in order to set the
context for the subsequent discussion as the conflict in perspectives is
not always clear to the reader.
Second, while the introduction is helpful in providing an outline
of the remaining chapters, Tarrer could better orient the reader to the
discussion on the whole. It is clear that he will be discussing the history
of interpretation of true and false prophecy, but it is not clear as to why
this discussion is necessary other than the fact that it has (and continues)
to be debated. He could have included a brief overview of the conflict
between Jer 28 and Deut 13 and 18 that some have posited. Instead, he
assumes that the reader is familiar with the debated passages and plunges
into the differing ways that Christians have understood the difference
between true and false prophets. Thus, it does not seem like the
introduction adequately brings the reader into the topic at hand.
Third, while Tarrer mentions that Childss approach is the best
way forward, it would help if he gave more specific explanation as to
why. Though an in-depth discussion of the way forward would be
beyond the scope of this work, it seems that it would aid the reader in
understanding some specific ways that this work might be useful for
future studies in this field.
Finally, while he returns to his second questionwhether the
need for criteria fell away based on later developments in biblical
studiesin the conclusion, it is not clear how he would answer it. From
126
his introduction, he seems to imply that it is reasonable to assume that

the need for criteria dissipated because of a lack of urgency and an
increased sense of tolerance. However, he does not present an effective
case for this contention.
Tarrers study assists OT scholars in understanding the history of
how Christians have understood true and false prophecy and is a valuable
resource for one seeking a concise, in-depth survey about the major
works and figures in this field. It would primarily aid those OT scholars
who want to study the field of prophecy and need a resource that will
give an overview of the history of research in this area.
ADAM DAY
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of

Israels King by Herman W. Bateman IV, Darrell L. Bock, and Gordon
H. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012. 527 pp., US $36.99,
hardcover.
Messianism is one of the most popular and one of the most important
concepts present within Scripture. In their recent volume, Jesus the
Messiah, Herbert Bateman, Darrell Bock, and Gordon Johnston enter
into the discussion with a book that offers contextual-canonical,
messianic, and Christological developments of Gods promise of
messiah within the larger framework and unfolding of Jewish history in
canonical and extra-biblical literature (p. 20). The authors are all wellrespected evangelical scholars who are more than qualified to take on
such an endeavor.
In the introduction Bateman lays out the approach of the book. In
doing so he notes that the work assumes a canonical reading that includes
the New Testament. He describes the biblical unfolding of messianic
revelation as a puzzle that becomes clearer with each successive piece.
The approach that the authors advocate takes into account Gods
progress of revelation through the writings of human authors (p. 32).
The discussion of messianism is done through the lens of kingship
because the anointed deliverer is tied to a kingdom and the rule of a
king and because the key features about Messiah surface in claims tied
to kingship and kingdom (pp. 3132). The main argument of the book is
broken into three major sections: promises of Israels king (the Old
Testament writings), expectations of Israels king (the Second Temple
BOOK REVIEWS
127
period literature), and the coming of Israels king (the New Testament
writings).
The first section of the book is concerned with Old Testament
expectations of the coming of the Messiah. This section is authored by
Johnston and is comprised of seven chapters that cover messianic content
in the Old Testament books of Genesis, Numbers, Psalms, Amos, Hosea,
Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. There is also a
chapter on the Davidic covenant. The content of these chapters is
described in terms of Messianic Trajectory.
Bateman is responsible for the second section, which is focused
on messianic anticipations/expectations within the Second Temple
period. This section begins with a discussion of four obstacles that need
to be overcome. The first obstacle is that there are limited Second
Temple resources that focus specifically on the concept of messianism.
The second obstacle is that the reader often comes to the Second Temple
period with blurred vision because there is a tendency to read
messianic terminology back into the Old Testament without accounting
for a development of meaning as it relates to the terminology within the
Second Temple period. There is also blurred vision because the church
distanced herself from Judaism in her formative years, which has led to a
lack of familiarity with this period. This has led to the third problem,
which is a lack of historical and social sensitivities of this time period.
The fourth obstacle is the literature of this time period is seldom taken
seriously. The remaining three chapters in this section are concerned
with discussing competing portraits of the Messiah from this time period.
The portraits that Bateman discusses are based upon the designations
used to describe the future Messiah. The portraits that he discusses are:
the one called Messiah, the one called Branch and Prince, and the one
called Son.
The final section of the book is written by Bock and focuses on
the New Testament texts. Bock begins this section with a discussion of
Revelation and the Catholic Epistles and then works backwards in the
remaining chapters. He does this because by working backwards, we go
from ideas that have a larger consensus back to those that are more
disputed (p. 336). This section is concerned with three things: tracing
the term Christ through the New Testament, to make a case for linking
this term and its usage to Jesus himself, and to point out places where the
New Testament uses the Old Testament in an explicit messianic fashion.
After his discussion of Revelation and the Catholic Epistles, Bock then
moves through the Pauline epistles, Acts, and then the Gospels (with a
discussion on the historical Jesus).
128
The book also includes an appendix where Johnston discusses

Gen 3:15 and messianism. This is dealt with separately because he notes
that it is not an explicitly messianic text.
Since this journal focuses in on the study of the Old Testament
this review will largely be focused on Johnstons section of the book,
which deals with the expectation of the Messiah in various Old
Testament books.
There are multiple features of this book that are commendable.
First, there are not many treatments of messianism in the Old Testament,
Second Temple period, and the New Testament from an evangelical
perspective. The few other evangelical volumes that do this are edited
volumes with articles written by various authors such as Israels Messiah
in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Baker 2003, repr. Wipf and Stock,
2011) and The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Eerdmans,
2007). Jesus the Messiah is both more cohesive in its argument and more
thorough in its presentation than these other recent volumes.
Second, since the authors narrow the discussion to only include
kingship, this work is focused and allows for more detail on this specific
aspect of messianism. As Bateman notes in the introduction, there are
other topics and themes that have messianic implications, but the most
prominent is that of king/kingdom. While a discussion of servant or
prophet would have been helpful, it would have complicated the works
focus. And while messianism has many facets, the focal point in the New
Testament (looking back on the Old Testament) is kingship and
kingdom.
A final commendable feature of the book (though by no means
the last) is its readability. Most other academic works on this subject are
too technical to be serviceable to the layperson. This work often
combines the benefits of scholarly content in an easily understandable
presentation. The numerous charts help in this respect. The readability of
Batemans section is particularly welcome. One of the reasons why there
is such blurred vision about the Second Temple period is because there
are few works that discuss this period of time in non-technical terms. I
hope that this book, but especially the section by Bateman, gets into the
hands of more people in the pews so that this time period can become
clearer.
There are three weaknesses worth mentioning: The first concerns
the lack of a bibliography and (at times) interaction with other sources.
This book does not contain a bibliography, which would serve as a good
tool for further study in this area to readers who may enter into the world
of messianism for the first time with this book. Beyond the bibliography
there are times when this work would benefit from more scholarly
BOOK REVIEWS
129
interaction. I do not want to detract from my previous comment that this

work is readable and yet often has very good scholarly content; this is
true. But there are chapters, especially in the Old Testament section, that
have little to no interaction with other scholarly literature on the subject
of messianism. This is most apparent in the first two chapters. In the first
chapter Johnston only references one scholarly work (p. 46 n. 6). In the
second chapter he references two works on page 71, but neither of them
deal with messianism. While these chapters contain a lot of very good
information, and have extensive biblical cross-referencing, the lack of
scholarly interaction diminishes the value of these chapters. The lack of
referencing in these chapters is particularly strange because other
chapters that Johnston writes are heavy with citation and interaction.
This is the case in his chapter on Isaiah where he has multiple
interactions on most pages (on the first two pages of this chapter he
references over ten sources). This gives the feeling that the first few
chapters were rushed and makes Johnstons chapters feel lopsided in
their presentation.
Second, since the focus of this book is on messianism through
the presentation of kingship there were several important Old Testament
texts on kingship that are not examined in sufficient detail. For example,
there is only passing reference to the law of the king in Deut 17:1420
and there is no sustained discussion of the refrain in Judges that laments
the lack of a king (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). I am assuming that the
author might note that these texts do not explicitly deal with messianism.
This may be true, but these are texts that establish an understanding of
kingship within the Old Testament and since king/kingdom is the focal
point of messianism these texts warrant interaction.
The final weakness of this work is that Johnston does not discuss
the problem of the supposed anti-monarchial texts in the Old Testament.
Since the trajectory of messianism within this book is founded on the
concept of kingship there needs to be a discussion and explanation of the
texts that are viewed by many as anti-monarchial: Judg 8:23, 9:715; 1
Sam 8, 11; and Hos 13:11. These texts are commonly taught as saying
that kingship is an illegitimate and sinful institution within ancient Israel.
If kingship is illegitimate then how is messianism (which is to be seen
through the lens of king/kingdom according to this book) to be
understood? The fact that Johnston does not discuss the problem of these
anti-monarchial texts is made all the more evident in that Bateman and
Bock are both concerned with resolving problems in their respective
sections (Bateman with his discussion of obstacles and Bock with the
order of his presentation from clear to disputed texts). The lack of
interaction with these supposed anti-monarchial texts seriously
compromises the claims of the book and weakens the argument.
130
Despite the above criticisms this book is the most thorough

evangelical treatment of the concept of messianism in recent years and
would serve as a great textbook for college and seminary classes. This
book would also be a great introductory text for laypeople. I would
suggest that it be supplemented by a volume edited by Satterthwaite,
Hess, and Wenham entitled The Lords Anointed: Interpretation of Old
Testament Messianic Texts (Baker 1995, repr. Wipf and Stock, 2012).
DANIEL S. DIFFEY
Grand Canyon Univeristy
A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament

in the New by Gregory K. Beale. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 2011. 1072
pp., US $54.99, hardcover.
Beales project begins with a reflection on the Old Testament story that
undergirds the New Testament. His rendition of this story must, by
nature, be rather focused. He provides two chapters to establish his
perspective on the Old Testament story: the first focusing on the
creation-fall story of Gen 13 and the second on the eschatological
character of the Old Testament witness.
The first of these two chapters is more easily accepted by an Old
Testament scholar. Genesis 13 is at the beginning of the Old Testament
canon and identifies the global setting for the epic of Israel, which begins
in earnest in Gen 12. He uses these key chapters to lay a foundation for
all that follows in the Old Testament, drawing in the kingship theme in
an early phase to make sense of national Israel and texts which do not fit
the narrative scheme as neatly. Creational theology, however, is hardly a
dominating force in Old Testament theology; it is not even present in the
earliest narrative creedal formulations (Deut 6, 26; Josh 24). More
controversial, however, is the second chapter, which searches for the
eschatological dimension of the Old Testament, even as early as Gen 49.
For a scholar who devoted much early energy to the use of the Old
Testament in Revelation, it is not surprising that his focus would be on
Gen 13 with its creational themes which reappear at the end of
Revelation. But it does raise the question of whether Beale has retold the
Old Testament story in a way most conducive to his New Testament
denouement. Thus one may say that this work is not New Testament
theology arising from Old Testament theology, but rather a New
Testament Old Testament Theology. One may want to hear some of the
BOOK REVIEWS
131
untamed theological witness and discrete voice of the Old

Testament, those elements in Old Testament theology that may not fit so
neatly with certain dominant renditions of New Testament theology (on
these terms, see e.g. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New
Testaments [Fortress, 1993], 76.). It raises the question of what
contribution the Old Testament can make to Christian theology,
especially in its details. It appears that there are key elements of the Old
Testament witness that are helpful for Christian theology and which are
not dealt with in the New Testament at least in terms of its details.
The biggest concern for Old Testament scholars, however, may
be over the chapter which reads the Old Testament as eschatological.
Much of this concern is related to how one defines the word
eschatological, and it appears that Beale is careful in this regard. He has
sought to highlight a future orientation which envisions a new day
coming which is in some ways discontinuous from the present day. It
may be that this focus on the eschatological is a gift that Beale has given
to the Old Testament guild, a function of what Wolterstorff once called
Privileged Cognitive Access (Does Truth Still Matter? Crux 31
[1995], 17). Some may say he is merely imposing his eschatological lens
on the text, finding eschatology behind every bush. But what he does
may be legitimate, reading the Bible through the lens of the final form of
the canon, that is, a canon which has Revelation at its conclusion, and so
prompts rereaders (Ben Zvi, Signs of Jonah [Sheffield, 2003]) to read
the canon again as if for the very first time. Of course, earlier voices in
this canonical redaction can be lost in the mix and the question endures
as to what we do with the main thrust of these earlier voices which are
not given expression in descriptions of a final canonical redaction as
Beale provides. But this prompts a reflection on the future and restorative
vision of the final canonical forms of the Old Testament.
Although eschatological may be eschewed as too strong a
word, a future orientation is clearly in view in the final canonical
divisions and collections of the TANAK. Ending the Torah at
Deuteronomy, prior to Joshua, places reading Israel at the brink of
possession of a land, that is, anticipation, a future hope, looking for
something beyond the present disaster which is described in Deut 4 and
30 (On this future orientation see Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its
Remedy in the Old Testament [Eisenbrauns, 2009]). Or ending the
Former Prophets at Kings with the release of Jehoiachin creates
anticipation, as does the Latter Prophets which look to something new
beyond the failed penitential project of the earlier prophets, one that
would involve a divine intervention and transformation of both humanity
and creation. Even the Writings (Kethubim), which has so often been
denied future orientation, possesses this potential, whether in Psalms,
132
Daniel, or Chronicles, and even Ezra-Nehemiah leaves the reader

looking for something more. This, of course, is even more obvious in
Old Greek orderings. This future perspective may indeed be key to the
canonical shaping of the Old Testament, as the community living in the
wake of the exile and the disillusionment over the lack of progress in
restoration reads these texts with hope for a better tomorrow. The
challenge of such an approach as I have noted, however, is that it brings
into question the value of so much in the Old Testament which is not
future in orientation, and how this material relates to the Christian
theological project.
Beales focus on story is, not surprisingly, attractive to many
within the Old Testament guild, partly because of our enduring interest in
history on the one side, and in the literary form of narrative on the other.
Leveraging story for laying an Old Testament foundation for the New
Testament is easily affirmed in that story plays such a key role in the Old
Testament canon, dominating books from Genesis2 Kings as well as
Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Esther. The ubiquity of Von Rads
short historical creeds in the Old Testament reveals that the dominating
presence of narrative as a form of biblical expression was a reflection of
a theological impulse. Redemptive-historical event as communicated
through narrative captured the heart of Israelite faith and Yahwehs
revelatory purposes.
Interest in the value of story and especially the short historical
creed for biblical theology, is related to the concern that we not
formulate biblical theology merely in the categories of systematic
theology, but allow our formulations to arise from the expression of the
canonical text. What is helpful with a narrative approach to biblical
theology is that it appears to reflect in a greater way the dominating form
of the biblical canon. In addition, the narrative approach avoids the
tendency toward the abstract logical expressions of the western traditions
which have often seemed to lose much of the punch of the biblical
witness as it transformed the witness from its original narrative form into
abstractions. However, this is not the exclusive avenue of revelation in
Scripture, and it raises questions about the role of three other dimensions
of biblical revelation that seem to be underemphasized in any Biblical
Theology that preferences narrative.
First, there is canon. The focus on the redemptive-historical is
helpful in that it provides a deeper structure to bring cohesion to a
diverse witness. However, it risks playing down the unique emphases of
the various literary units of the canon. Even within those books most
conducive to the storied approach there is a risk that these books are
merely windows to view the underlying story, rather than theological
BOOK REVIEWS
133
works in their own right that are developing theology based on the
events. For example, in the storied approach it is easy to plane out the
differences between Kings and Chronicles. The events are important, but
the writer of Kings may be developing theodicy and penitence, for
instance, while the Chronicler is developing worship and penitential
agenda for their audiences. Of course, this is problematic for those books
that do not fit within the storied category As has been the case
throughout the history of writing biblical theology based on story, there
is a risk of creating a canon of story within a canon and making the other
pieces fit, which usually means losing the contribution of non-storied
sections of the Old Testament to biblical theology. This discussion does
not even take into account the shape of the Old Testament canon and
whether it really reflects a continuous story.
The second dimension of biblical revelation is related to another
key creedal expression in the Old Testament witness. While von Rads
short historical creed is certainly ubiquitous throughout the Old
Testament as a key centre of theological reflection on the Old Testament,
a fixation with this creedal expression seems to miss a second major
creedal formulation in the Old Testament, what I have called the
character creed, that which is found in Exod 34 and which not only
reverberates throughout the Old Testament but weaves its way into the
New Testament as Jesus fully reveals the character of Yahweh in flesh
(e.g., John 1:1418) (Knowles, The Unfolding Mystery of the Divine
Name [IVP Academic, 2012]).
The final concern I have with allowing story to dominate biblical
theology arises from the concern that is apparent throughout Beales
work that he not miss the value of the poetic books of the Old Testament.
I appreciate his honesty at each juncture, and my thought is that his
constant defense reflects an honest concern that he not lose the value of
these key canonical witnesses. But one wonders if he protesteth too
much. One of the dangers of adopting a narrative approach is that while
it does ensure we do not impose modern abstractions to create
propositions, it remains a system that is used to bring order to theology;
it is just a different order. But on the level of genre there are other modes
of theology and I am wondering if it is not time for us to take seriously
the other dominating genre present in the Scriptures: poetry. The
theological implications of poetic forms and expressions have been
explored especially by the Christian interpreter Patrick Miller in his 1994
article The Theological Significance of Biblical Poetry and Jewish
interpreter Stephen Geller in his studies published in 1996 as Sacred
Enigmas: Literary Religion in the Hebrew Bible. John Goldingay offers
further reflections on the theological significance of poetry based on his
studies of Isaiah (Poetry and Theology in Isaiah 5666). These studies
134
highlighted for me the possibilities of poetics for theological reflection

and prompted this question: Why is it that the two most direct and
intimate forms of communication between God and humanity, psalms
and prophecy, are dominantly cast in poetic form? It is true that we seem
to have moved beyond mere propositions to embrace narrative as key to
theological reflection, but why not poetics? Possibly the reason is that
poetry contains so much ambiguity, image, even mystery. I find in
Beales biblical theological project a narrative structure used to
communicate propositional truths, but possibly it is time to pursue a form
of theology that shares qualities with poetry: releasing the imagistic
power of the Word and embracing the ambiguity typical of poetic forms,
which may take us further in the project of giving glory to this
transcendent one who is beyond human understanding.
MARK J. BODA
McMaster Divinity College/McMaster University
An Introduction to Ugaritic by John Huehnergard. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2012. 250 pp., US $69.95.
This volume is the latest publishing effort to produce an introductory
grammar for Ugaritic. Chronologically, it has recently been preceded by
William Schniedewind and Joel Hunts A Primer on Ugaritic
(Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Michael Williams Basics of
Ugaritic (Zondervan, 2012). Although A Manual of Ugaritic by Pierre
Bourdreuil and Dennis Pardee (Eisenbrauns, 2009) might be used to
introduce students who have a command of Hebrew to Ugaritic, it is
something of a hybrid introduction-reference grammar-chrestomathy. As
such this volume wont factor into the comments that follow.
My thoughts on Huehnergards grammar will of necessity be
filtered through both my experience as a graduate student and as
someone who has taught Ugaritic. I deliver a video-based introduction to
Ugaritic online and have used the volumes by Schniedewind and Hunt
and by Williams. Since this course is not for formal credit, students may
or may not have had any exposure to biblical Hebrew or any other
Semitic language. As such, one size doesnt fit all.
I am in agreement with other reviewers that Huehnergards
introduction is now the best introductory volume for learning Ugaritic if
one has had prior exposure to Biblical Hebrew. If that is not the case,
Williams Basics of Ugaritic is a better place to start. Williams does a
BOOK REVIEWS
135
fine job of simultaneously presenting general grammar and the basics of

Ugaritic. The professor might lament Williamss folksy language and
illustrations to teach grammatical terms and concepts, but the strategy
works. It serves no purpose to protest that students should have learned
that material in high school or as undergraduates in English class. The
argument is silenced by the contrary reality. The major flaw in
Williamss introduction is the lack of exposure to actual Ugaritic texts.
There are brief but serviceable exercises in Williams, but no primary text
selections. I use Williams for teaching my course and fill this void with
texts found in Bourdreuil and Pardee. In the future I plan to continue my
use of Williams and require Huehnergard for his exercises and text
selections.
As a graduate student I was fortunate that our professor had
access to Huehnergards classroom notes that became the basis of his
grammar. Our class used those notes to supplement Segerts A Basic
Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (University of California Press,
1985), for many years the only introduction available. Segert has been
superseded by Huehnergard. The latter is more coherently structured, and
the explanations much more lucid. Students who have gone through a
year of Biblical Hebrew, taught deductively, will feel right at home with
the format, as opposed to Segerts disjointed and, in places, cryptic
presentation.
This familiarity of presentation is also what makes Huehnergard
preferable to Schniedewind and Hunt, which attempts a more inductive
strategy. In my experience, the effort of that volume fails in clarity and
coherence for students, whether they have had Hebrew or not.
Schniedewind and Hunt simply presuppose too much for most beginning
students. For example, explanations cite forms and vocabulary from
Akkadian. Explanations of grammar are moved to the back of the book.
(If they are needed, why the inductive approach?) It also has too many
irritating typographical errors.
With respect to the content of Huehnergards introduction, In
Part I we find an adequate introductory overview of the Ugaritic
language, text corpus, genres, tools for studying Ugaritic, and points of
comparison with Biblical Hebrew. I would like to have seen
Huehnergard provide a substantive essay on the intersection of Ugaritic
material with Israelite religion and other points of biblical research. This
is something Williams included, albeit in quite simplified form, as well
as Schniedewind and Hunt. I suspect that omission of this sort of
material stems from a resistance to justifying the study of Ugaritic. The
reality is that most students of Ugaritic come from the world of biblical
studies, and so connections with the content (not just the language) of the
Hebrew Bible is not only appropriate, but desirable.
136
Parts II and III briefly cover orthography (pp. 1922) and

phonology (pp. 2330). The treatment of orthography is actually
supplemented by an excellent essay (Appendix A) with hand-drawing
illustrations on the alphabetic script of Ugarit by John Ellison (pp. 179
88).
Other than the space devoted to text selections, Part IV, which
covers Ugaritic morphology, is the longest single section of the grammar
(pp. 3180). All the expected parts of speech are covered. Part V briefly
surveys Ugaritic syntax (pp. 8184). The remainder of the grammatical
presentation concludes with Part VI, which addresses features of poetic
Texts (pp. 8587).
Exercises, vocabulary, and exposure to actual Ugaritic texts form
the content of Parts VII and VIII. Exercises and vocabulary for
memorization begin in Part VII (pp. 8998). Text selections in Part VIII
(pp. 99138) include six letters, four legal texts, two
economic/administrative texts, and short selections from Kirta and the
Baal Cycle (Baal and Yamm, CTA 1.2.i.1138). Every text is
accompanied by commentary that deals with vocalization, morphology,
and syntax.
Huehnergard includes a full answer key (Appendix B) for all the
exercises and text selections for translation, Paradigms (Appendix C).
Lastly, the volume includes 51 plates as illustrations of Ugaritic tablets,
some of which are in color.
MICHAEL S. HEISER
Bellingham, WA
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian
Bible by Timothy Michael Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013,
216 pp., US $24.95, softcover.
Timothy Michael Law is currently an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow
in the Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen, a Junior Research Fellow at
the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, and Publisher and
Editor-in-Chief of The Marginalia Review of Books. He is also a coeditor of an Oxford University Press series on The Apocrypha in the
History of Interpretation and the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of the
Septuagint.
Although there are encouraging signs that interest in the
Septuagint (LXX) is growing, the Greek OT still receives less attention
BOOK REVIEWS
137
than it deserves in evangelical institutions. Seminarians devote countless

hours to the Hebrew Bible, which is a worthy investment, but the Greek
textual traditions most often employed by NT writers and by the Church
during the first four centuries of her existence deserve increased
investigation, especially since those textual traditions do not always
precisely mirror the Hebrew texts represented in the Masoretic Text
(MT). If Christians are to be informed about the nature of the biblical
writings we cherish, we should labor to understand the relationships
between ancient text forms, how they were employed by Jews and
Christians in the Greco-Roman era, and why certain text forms came to
be used by the church instead of others. To take one example, we should
investigate such questions as why the quotation of Jer 31:32 in Heb 8:9
reflects the LXX, while Jer 31:32 itself reflects the MT in our English
Bibles. The difference between the two textual traditions is one of
substance and not merely style. Laws book rightly labors to redress the
neglect of such investigations. In addition to reasons already mentioned,
Law suggests that the LXX deserves increased interest because it (a)
sheds light on Hellenistic Judaism from the third century B.C. to the first
century A.D., providing insight into the world of the NT and early
Christianity; (b) significantly shaped the theology of the earliest
Christians, sometimes in directions not specified by the Hebrew Bible;
and (c) often points not only to alternative, but perhaps even older, forms
of the Hebrew text.
Laws narrative traverses a large amount of terrain for a slim
volume. He provides historical background on the hellenized context that
gave rise to a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures; argues for
significant fluctuation and plurality in Hebrew textual traditions and the
absence of an agreed upon canon prior to the second century A.D.;
describes the original translators of the LXX, as far as can be known
from legendary accounts and other sources, and the nature of their
translation; highlights differences between Hebrew and Greek textual
traditions of the OT; addresses the relevance of apocryphal writings to
the discussion of the canon; narrates how a canon arose from the variety
of text forms; discusses the extent and nature of the use of the LXX by
the NT and the early church; and plenty more. He also includes a lengthy
and helpful, though not exhaustive, bibliography for those who wish to
pursue these issues further.
Although When God Spoke Greek has only been available for a
short time, it has already garnered much praise from an impressive array
of scholars. Law is to be commended for expressing himself clearly for
non-specialists, for crafting a narrative that is both informative and
delightful to read, and for exposing readers to significant issues
regarding biblical textual traditions that too often remain unknown not
138
only to the rank and file in the church, but even to scholars and church
leaders.
My commendations for Laws book come with some
qualifications. Space permits mention of only three general ones. First,
Law sometimes does not sufficiently make readers aware of thoughtful
opposing viewpoints. For example, certain capable scholars in the field
believe that an OT canon had more solidity prior to the second century
A.D. than Law sees. We do not have to look only to conservative scholars
to find those who would temper Laws suggestion that Talking about
the canon is . . . inescapably retrospective (p. 82). Some would see
Laws tendency to disallow canonical standing prior to the appearance of
later lists to be itself anachronistic. Even if Law gets closer to the truth in
his assessment of the evidence, his book would better serve uninitiated
readers if he acknowledged the existence and arguments of alternative
viewpoints more readily, even if only in endnotes. The purposeful
brevity and intended audience of the book do not entirely excuse this
tendency.
Second, Law too regularly expresses his conclusions in
unrestrained terms when more caution is warranted. The pages teem with
such expressions as spectacularly different message (p. 6),
extraordinarily fluid and multiple divergent textual traditions (p. 31),
extensive textual plurality (p. 80), rich variety of biblical textuality
(p. 84), dizzying variety of textual forms (p. 86), very much in flux
(p. 116), and many diverse theological trajectories (p. 170). The
starkness of such language at times seems to over interpret the evidence.
One example, among others that could receive mention, appears in Laws
discussion of the textual traditions of Ezekiel. He suggests that P967, a
Greek fragment discovered in 1931, may shed light on the earlier form
of Ezekiel. By the end of the same paragraph, Law confidently asserts
that a passage that is missing from this fragment was not originally in
the older Hebrew text (p. 53). Law may ultimately be correct in his
assessment, but he jumps incautiously from acknowledged uncertainty
(may shed light on the earlier form) to confident conclusion (was not
originally in the older Hebrew text). Hector Patmore has rightly urged
caution when comparing P967 with texts found at Masada, suggesting
that unless new materials come to light, there is no credible way of
establishing the historical precedence or originality of either (The
Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript
Finds from Masada and Qumran JSOT 32 [2007]: 242).
Third, Law regularly suggests that the variety of textual
traditions prior to the second century A.D. was normal and
unproblematic for the earliest Jewish and Christian users of Scripture
BOOK REVIEWS
139
(p. 84; cf. 67) and did not disturb the New Testament writers (p. 116).
But he does not adequately demonstrate that NT writers commonly had
access to a variety of text forms or that they intentionally selected
readings from known variations. In fact, Law himself seems to
acknowledge uncertainty about what they had access to. He writes,
Whether or not [NT writers] were aware of the divergences between the
Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible is irrelevant [to the question of the
extent of Septuagintal impact on the NT] and Whether consciously or
not, they were transmitting a message based on a theological reading of
the Jewish scriptures that was often different from the Hebrew Bibles
message (p. 7). If he is unsure about how much access they had to
diverging witnesses, how can he be sure that variations were normal and
unproblematic or did not disturb them? Moreover, if most firstcentury readers/hearers would not likely have had the opportunity to
compare and contrast textual traditions and we cannot yet be certain how
much the NT writers themselves did so, the lack of any indication of a
debate over the textual plurality (p. 86) in that time period cannot prove
much. The concern of Matthews Jesus with jots and tittles may also
strain Laws argument here.
Another matter that gives me pause about Laws assertions on
this point is that, as some in the early church increasingly became aware
of textual variations, especially as they interacted with Jews and their
texts, anxiety did indeed arise. The existence of revisions of Greek
versions toward Hebrew text traditions and of Origens Hexapla testify to
some measure of anxiety over textual variation. Later, as Law himself
acknowledges, many readers were disturbed by Jeromes new
expressions [translated from the Hebrew]. . . . The novelty of Jeromes
language was unsettling to those who would have become comfortable
with the language of the Old Latin [which largely followed the LXX]
(p. 161). Law also points to the bishop of Oea who almost lost his
congregation when he read from Jeromes rendering of Jonah 4:6. They
fumed upon hearing the new translation (p. 164). Law concludes that
this story provides a window into the struggle of parting with the
churchs Bible in favor of Jeromes new translation (p. 164). Such
incidents do not portray a tidy milieu of appreciation for a diversity of
text forms or a lack of concern over textual plurality. Law again does not
handle the evidence cautiously enough when he claims most early
Christians showed no anxiety at the thought of not having the
original and that concern over textual plurality is a distinctively
modern theological anxiety (p. 168).
For these and other reasons, I would encourage readers who are
just beginning to wade into the issues treated here to consult other
perspectives in dialogue with this one. For the important subjects it treats
140
and the clarity and verve with which it treats them, Laws book should be
read by any and all, yet one will want to look elsewhere if a broader
sweep of the field is desired.
KENT CAPPS
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural

Memory by Jennie Barbour. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012. xv + 225 pp., US $135.00, hardcover.
With this monograph, Jennie Barbour has shared with the world the fruits
of her doctoral research carried out under such stalwarts in the field as
Hugh Williamson, Stuart Weeks, and John Barton. Her writing is clear,
concise, and easily readable. Furthermore, her arguments are lucid and
well-developed, so that while the reader may disagree with her, it is
certainly not because of the authors lack of clarity.
The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet adds to the evergrowing literature on allusion in biblical studies. Barbour draws from the
work of Richard Hays, among others, as she attempts to demonstrate
allusion in the book of Ecclesiastes. Barbour maintains that the allusions
she finds within Qohelet more or less cohere with the seven guidelines
proposed by Hays in his study of Pauline literature. Interestingly,
Barbour moves beyond strictly literary allusions by arguing that Qohelet
echoes not only previous literature, but also the broader cultural memory
of previous kings and exiles that is reflected in the literature of
Lamentations, the historical books, and the writing prophets. Moving
beyond strictly textual relationships to applying studies on collective
memory highlights Barbours creativity and offers multiple insights into
the text of Ecclesiastes.
Essentially, Barbour argues that the background against which
Ecclesiastes was written can and should be found in Israel/Judah and the
literature it composed. This is a sharp departure from the critical trends
of the past two centuries that would locate influences on Ecclesiastes
within Greece, Egypt, and the broader ancient Near East. Barbours
work, along with other recent work such as that done by Stuart Weeks,
represents a significant step in the right direction by noting the
importance of the literary tradition within Israel itself rather than
searching for outside influence upon Ecclesiastes. Barbour finds the
background to Qohelet in five primary areas: Qohelet as a composite of
BOOK REVIEWS
141
all the kings of Israel (ch. 1); a recounting of history in the books
opening poem (ch. 2); portraits of Solomon, David and his sons, and Saul
in Eccl 4 (ch. 3); exile (ch. 4); and the fall of Jerusalem (ch. 5).
Barbours analysis of these five themes is impeccable. She
demonstrates the textual relationships between Ecclesiastes and multiple
other portions of the Scriptures in a way that sheds fresh light on the
book of Ecclesiastes and the potential argument that it is making. Most
interestingly for this reviewer, Barbour demonstrates significant
linguistic overlap between the Chroniclers description of Hezekiah and
the Royal Experiment of Eccl 2. Barbour also highlights the many
linguistic and thematic overlaps between Ecclesiastes and prophetic
literature, a lacuna that Raymond van Leeuwen highlighted some years
ago. Finally, in her conclusion Barbour issues a well-crafted argument
for a Christo-telic reading of Ecclesiastes, stating that, The kingship of
Qohelet has a continuity with the kingship of Christ, anticipating it
positively rather than simply requiring it negatively (p. 182). Her
argument demonstrates how the book speaks to the coming of Christ in a
positive sense, as opposed to the typical Christo-centric reading of the
book as without Christ, everything is meaningless. Her Christo-telic
reading allows the book to be read in its original context as longing for
the King who would finally fulfill all of the Davidic promises. In these
respects, Barbours work is to be praised.
Nevertheless, there are a few issues in Barbours work that
caused me pause. For example, Barbours investigation into allusion in
Ecclesiastes rests on the assumption that the book was written during the
Hellenistic period (pp. 89). One would expect that such a significant
piece of her argument would be demonstrated rather than assumed.
Barbour might argue that her investigation of allusion undergirds her
assumption. Nevertheless, even a cursory treatment of arguments
regarding the books provenance would have been helpful, especially
given that her work argues for echoes of historical memory within
Ecclesiastes. Furthermore, I found it interesting that in her discussion of
city-laments in chapter five, Barbour states:
. . . certainly there are many central city-lament traits missing
from Ecclesiastes, such as the personification of the city, the
issue of Yahwehs agency, the direct address to the deity, or the
question of the citys sin and possible restoration, but the
resemblances particularly at the level of scenery and atmosphere
are marked enough for us to suppose that the book of
Ecclesiastes, while being a very different type of literature, does
draw on city-lament material as part of its literary heritage and
stylistic vocabulary. Generically, these works are completely
142
different, but as Qohelet elsewhere assimilates motifs and ways

of speaking from other genres (prophecy, history, law), so too in
this case coincidence of genre is less important than the presence
of the same language in establishing a general relationship. (pp.
1423)
Barbours arguments regarding the influence of city-laments
upon the so-called poem on death and dying in Eccl 12 are quite
convincing, as her thesis solves the most common problems of
allegorical readings. However, when criticizing the view that the text
speaks of the Day of Yahweh, she notes that it lacks many of the key
features of the motif. The difficulty with her criticism is that she makes
the same concession in regards to her own theory that 12:17 is a city
lament.
Despite these reservations, Barbour has given readers much to
consider when thinking through possible inner-biblical references in the
book of Ecclesiastes. As noted above, the most problematic issue for
evangelical readers will be her dating of the book of Ecclesiastes, which
consequently calls into question the validity of the allusions she sees in
the book. Nevertheless, those interested in how Ecclesiastes fits within
the canon will do well to spend the time working through her arguments.
RUSSELL L. MEEK
Prophets before the Exile: Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum,

Habakkuk by Christopher R. Smith. Understanding the Books of the
Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Connect, 2013. 114 pp., US $10.00,
softcover.
This book is part of a series of study guides designed to be used in
conjunction with The Books of the Bible, a version of the Bible, in the
translation of the NIV, without any chapter or verse numbers. Available
from www.biblica.com/thebooks, this is intended to facilitate a reading
of the biblical books in their natural form, without the chapter or verse
numbers getting in the way. Another intention is for readers to engage
with the biblical books in their entirety by studying them section by
section in a reading and study group.
Smiths guide thus encourages readers to read the prophetic
books aloud in the context of such a group and then engage with them a
BOOK REVIEWS
143
few prophetic oracles at a time. Another point worth noting is that The
Books of the Bible does not follow the traditional canonical order but
arranges them according to their assumed chronological sequence. This
is reflected in this guide to the pre-exilic Minor Prophets, which follows
the order indicated by its subtitle.
It is just about possible to use this guide in conjunction with a
traditional version of the NIV, but this is not advisable for two reasons:
(a) readers will not be able to follow up the frequent references to the
introductions to the individual prophetic books found in The Books of the
Bible, and (b) in that version the books natural sections are apparently
marked off by white space. As there are no references to any chapter or
verse numbers anywhere, readers of this guide are told to find passages
with the help of their introductory words, such as Sound the trumpet in
Gibeah or Ephraim is oppressed, trampled in judgment. As the aim is
to read the books in their entirety, this is not too much of a problem, but I
imagine that the reading experience is facilitated by the presence of the
white space included in The Books of the Bible but missing from other
versions.
Smiths guide features some introductory instructions on how it
is best used, including the encouragement to share deeply and agree on
some ground rules, such as confidentiality and respect. It is designed for
the Bible to be studied in community, and it encourages creativity by
inviting people to share responses to the biblical texts in the form of
poetry, journal or blog entries, artwork, dramas, videos, and so on, and
especially the creative retellings that are invited in some sessions (p. 7).
There are twenty-one sessions in this guide, five on Amos, six on
Hosea, four on Micah, and two each on Zephaniah, Nahum, and
Habakkuk. The first session on each book invites readers to read through
the entire book in one sitting before engaging with some general
discussion questions related to the book as a whole. Follow-up sessions
are then designed to take readers through the book again, this time
section by section, enabling deeper engagement with the particular issues
raised by the prophets words.
Each section includes observations, either on the prophetic books
as a whole or on their individual parts. These observations provide
something like a running commentary that is designed to offer some
general guidance to and explanation of the main issues addressed in or
raised by the text.
In my judgment, this is a very worthwhile project, and it
deserves to be widely-known, supported, and adopted. To encourage
Christian communities to engage with the biblical books as communities
and to look at them as books that are to be read and studied in their
entirety is laudable. While I did not have access to The Books of the
144
Bible, it seems to me that the experience of reading the Bible without

chapter or verse numbers is likely to be stimulating and to encourage a
fresh reading that moves beyond any preoccupation with individual
verses, which has beset the traditional Christian reading of the prophets
in particular.
The brevity of Smiths guide on the pre-exilic prophets does not
allow him to offer detailed commentary, and in the case of difficult texts
like these, this is likely to cause some frustration at times. Perhaps study
groups should be advised to have access to at least one more detailed
commentary for those times when further information and explanation
are required. That said, it was evident that Smith is well-informed, not
only concerning the prophetic books as such, but also with respect to the
conclusions of biblical scholarship.
However, for me the highlight of this guide was the discussion
questions. They were among the very best of such questions I have ever
come across. They encourage readers to pay attention to what the
prophets were saying in the context of their own time. They also
encourage honest and unflinching engagement with the difficult
questions raised by the texts, including divine violence and the nature of
God as envisaged by the prophets. Smiths questions further promote
reflective, thoughtful and creative engagement with current issues in the
light of the prophets message. In fact, this is an area in which the
questions particularly excel. And they invite not only critical, but also
positive engagement with todays world. What I mean by that is that
Smith, for instance, frequently asks readers to find positive examples of
where contemporary social injustice, obviously one of the key issues
addressed by these prophetic books, has been alleviated by humanitarian
efforts.
It is encouraging to come across a project that promotes the
communal study of the biblical texts in their entirety, and I would highly
recommend this guide to Christian readers wishing to engage with the
prophetic books of Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and
Habakkuk.
Karl Mller
University of Cumbria
Genesis by John H. Walton. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background

Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. 176 pp., US $16.99,
softcover.
BOOK REVIEWS
145
John Waltons Genesis is part of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible

Background Commentary series. This commentary on Genesis was
previously released in 2009 as the first part of volume 1, bound together
with the commentaries on each of the five books of the Pentateuch.
Walton is the general editor of the series.
The commentary is written at a semi-popular level and is printed
in full color on glossy pages. There is at least one image (pictures, maps,
charts, and the like) on one of the facing pages in the entire commentary
(most pages have two or more images). There are also more than 100
sidebars and/or charts spread through the commentary. The volume is
visually pleasing, sporting a semi-glossy magazine look. Half of the 140
page commentary is devoted to the background of Gen 111 and the
other half to chapters 1250. The commentary ends with an annotated
bibliography of about a dozen and a half titles and about 20 pages of
endnotes.
The commentary does not provide an interpretation of the
biblical text, but offers individual comments pertaining to background
issues of selected verse fragments or phrases. It reads much like The IVP
Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament by John Walton, Victor
Matthews, and Mark Chavalas (InterVarsity, 2000), but it is much more
visually appealing. The background materials treated include: historical,
cultural, religious, mythological, chronological, architectural,
archaeological, and so on. Walton has written extensively on the
background matters of Genesis previously; those familiar with his
writing will not find surprises here.
For whom is this commentary designed? The student studying
ancient Near Eastern context of the Scriptures interested in Waltons
views might do better reading his Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the
Old Testament: An Introduction to the Conceptual World of the Hebrew
Bible (Baker, 2006). The student or pastor studying the biblical text to
prepare for a paper or sermon might benefit more from Waltons Genesis
in the NIVAC series (Zondervan, 2001). The student or teacher
interested in the research behind Waltons innovative views of Gen 1
would do better checking out of the library his Genesis 1 as Ancient
Cosmology (Eisenbrauns, 2011). I can see how busy teachers and pastors
could use the concise materials in this illustrated background
commentary for writing sermons and lessons, yet we all hope they will
indulge in more detailed study of the issues. Ideally, this book should
only serve as first step in sermon research. However, the book appears as
though it is meant for the lay reader.
Waltons Background Commentary lacks any statement about its
purpose and approach, what is meant by background, or about its basis
146
for comparisons. The theoretical explanation is handled by a promotional

blurb on the back cover in terms of what readers can hope to avoid:
[W]ithout knowledge of the ancient context we can easily impose our
own culture on the text, potentially distorting it. Presumably this
background commentary is meant as an antidote in the case of
interpreting the book of Genesis.
The heavy lifting in Gen 111 is comparison to ancient myths
and legends and in Gen 1250 to short snippets regarding relevant
aspects of ancient cultures. Historical, geographical, and theological
comments are less of a focus but appear frequently through the
commentary. The commentary offers no introductory explanation
regarding methods or aims or basis of the comparisons, not even in the
introduction. The commentary offers no thesis, no running argument, and
no overall interpretation of Genesis. Walton simply begins comparing
ancient things to Genesis. He regularly, but not always, affirms or
challenges the relative viability of the elements he introduces to compare
to Genesis. The reader is left to think that anything ancient that seems
similar in any way is the necessary background for Genesis.
The discussion of Genesis and Mythology in the Illustrated
Background Commentary does not define myth but points to myths
functions. Walton infers that Genesis functions more like ancient myths
than the normal ways moderns think (see pp. 910). He says Genesis
offers an alternative encapsulation of how the world worked (p. 9).
However, that is not necessarily the impression one gets when reading
the comparisons he offers. Here is a representative sampling of the
comparisons (usually presented favorably or without judgment):
Expanse (1:6) is compared to the Mesopotamian views of

skins and contrasted to Nut the ancient Egyptian sky
goddess, and concludes that virtually all ancients thought of
the firmament as solid (see p. 17);
Water above it (1:7) is compared to the Marduks dividing
of Tiamat in Enuma Elish and other myths (see pp. 1718);
Seventh day holy (2:3) is compared to the Near Eastern
New Years festivals which celebrate the enthronement of
the deity (see pp. 2324);
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9) is compared
to the heros sexual intercourse to a prostitute in the Epic of
Gilgamesh (see p. 28);
Helper suitable for him (2:18) is compared to the heros
counterpart Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh (see p. 31);
BOOK REVIEWS
147
Serpent (3:1) is compared to the magical plant in the Epic

of Gilgamesh, serpents in Egyptian mythology, and other
ancient mythic traditions (see pp. 3334);
the long lives of the genealogy of Gen 5 are compared to the
Sumerian King List (see p. 42);
Married any of them they chose (6:2) is compared to the
deflowering of the bride in the Epic of Gilgamesh (see pp.
4344);
Nephilim . . . heroes (6:4) is compared to Gilgamesh (see
p. 45);
some of the details of Noahs flood are compared to several
ancient accounts (Epic of Atrahasis, Epic of Gilgamesh), but
Walton concludes that the biblical account provides a
different interpretation of the tragedy (see pp. 4849);
the Abrahamic covenant is explained in relation to
Weinfelds distinctions regarding the treaty and grant forms
(see pp. 7677);
circumcision is compared to ancient Levantine and Egyptian
practices (see pp. 8889);
Nuzi texts which mention family gods are compared to the
teraphim Rachel took (Walton emphasizes ancient females
converting to their husbands gods but does not mention
contrary evidence like the treaty marriages of 1 Kgs 11; see
p. 112);
Fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law (38:8) is
compared Hittite laws (see pp. 12426).
These kinds of comparisons attended on every page by images of

associated ancient sculptures, reliefs, artifacts, and the like reinforces
page after page that the book of Genesis shares much with the
surrounding ancient cultures.
In many of Waltons other writings he is explicit in what he does
not say about the Bible and myths: When we use the literature of the
ancient Near East in comparison with the Bible, we are not trying to
identify or suggest literary relationship (Genesis [Zondervan, 2001], 27;
also discussion on pp. 2135). For other such deflections as well as
reasoned explanations on wrong and right means of ancient comparative
studies for biblical interpretations see, for example, Creation,
Dictionary of Old Testament: Pentateuch (InterVasity, 2003), 15568;
and the introductions to his Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology and The
Lost World of Genesis One (InterVarsity, 2009). In other places Walton
boldly claims ancient background as essential. [A]t times the cultural
148
background of the text is an essential ingredient for deciphering the

authoritative message and meaning of the text (Interpreting the Bible
as an Ancient Near Eastern Document, in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or
Late Invention? [B&H, 2008], 299 [298327]; also see Waltons brief
discussion on Confessional Scholarship and the Role of Comparative
Studies, 3013). In a carefully nuanced explanation of using ancient
comparative studies in evangelical biblical interpretation, Walton offers
similar bold claims under the heads God did not reject the entire worldpicture of Israels neighbors, but used much of its structure as a
framework for revelation and Revelation did not always counter
ancient Near Eastern concepts, but often used them in productive ways
(Ancient Near Eastern Background Studies, Dictionary for Theological
Interpretation of the Bible [Baker Academic, 2005], 4045).
Walton has written extensively on the use of ancient Near
Eastern background for biblical interpretation. His contributions both to
the theory and specific applications of ancient comparative studies to the
Scriptures offer much to students and scholars. The colorful background
commentary on Genesis under review here, however, provides no
theoretical explanation of method and does not provide any extensive
discussion of the comparisons. The many comparisons are simply there
as suggestions, undifferentiated in value or significance for the laity. If
the commentary were to have an introduction I would imagine it being
along the lines of the picture-less IVP Background Commentary coauthored by Walton (cited above). The stated two-fold purpose of that
commentary is to help the interpreter avoid erroneous conclusions and
sometimes simply to satisfy curiosity (see pp. 79). The IVP
Background Commentary comes short of acknowledging an incongruity
between the intended nonprofessional readerships lack of access to look
up sources for further information and the lack of any such references to
look up. The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary
under review corrects part of the problem by providing endnotes for
many entries. However, the same incongruity between manifold
suggested comparisons and lack of adequate interpretation for lay readers
stands. Perhaps this problem could be solved by an introduction which
advised lay readers to use the background commentary alongside other
reliable published interpretations of Genesis.
The general reader could benefit by a careful reading of this
book, especially if used alongside a reliable semi-popular commentary
on the book of Genesis itself. Waltons background commentary is
attractive and fun. Perhaps the ideal reader is the lay person preparing to
teach Bible studies or church classes. Waltons illustrated background
BOOK REVIEWS
149
commentary could well serve the general reader but only if used in
concert with other reliable interpretive guides.
GARY EDWARD SCHNITTJER
Cairn University
BOOK REVIEW INDEX
Beginning Biblical Hebrew: A Grammar and Illustrated Reader

by John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt
(Reviewed by W. K. Bechtold)
99
Isaiah by David W. Baker (Reviewed by P. Wegner)
101
Journey to Joy: The Psalms of Ascent by Josh Moody

(Reviewed by A. Witt)
104
From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent

in the Historiography of Israels Settlement of Canaan
by Koert van Bekkum (Reviewed by V. P. Long)
106
Jerusalem and the Nations: Studies in the Book of Isaiah

by Ronald E. Clements (Reviewed by P. J. Long)
109
Psalms 12: Gateway to the Psalter by Robert L. Cole

(Reviewed by P. J. Long)
112
Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

by John Currid (Reviewed by J. W. Hilber)
114
Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms:

Approaches and Convergence edited by Susan Gillingham
(Reviewed by J. E. Stewart)
117
Invitation to the Psalms: A Readers Guide for Discovery and

Engagement by Rolf A. Jacobson and Karl N. Jacobson
(Reviewed by R. Burgess)
121
Reading with the Faithful: Interpretation of True and False Prophecy

in the Book of Jeremiah from Ancient Times to Modern
by Seth B. Tarrer (Reviewed by A. Day)
123
Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming
of Israels King by Herman W. Bateman IV, Darrell L. Bock,
and Gordon H. Johnston (Reviewed by D. Diffey)
126
A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the

Old Testament in the New by Gregory K. Beale
(Reviewed by M. J. Boda)
130
An Introduction to Ugaritic by John Huehnergard

(Reviewed by M. S. Heiser)
134
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the
Christian Bible by Timothy Michael Law
(Reviewed by K. Capps)
136
The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural

Memory by Jennie Barbour (Reviewed by R. L. Meek)
140
Prophets before the Exile: Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum,
Habakkuk by Christopher R. Smith
(Reviewed by K. Mller)
142
Genesis by John H. Walton (Reviewed by G. E. Schnittjer)
144

Journal For The Evangelical Study of The Old Testament

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal For The Evangelical Study of The Old Testament

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

[JESOT 1.

JOURNAL FOR THE EVANGELICAL

The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings:

Book Review Index

Journal for the Evangelical Study

JESOT is published bi-annually online at www.jesot.org and in print

2014 by Wipf and Stock Publishers

Journal for the Evangelical Study

Journal correspondence and manuscript

Books for review and review correspondence

All ordering and subscription inquiries

WALTER C. KAISER JR. (GordonConwell Theological Seminary, USA)

GEORGE ATHAS (Moore Theological

JENS BRUUN KOFOED (Copenhagen

ELLIS R. BROTZMAN (Emeritus, Tyndale

KENNETH A. MATHEWS (Beeson

HLNE DALLAIRE (Denver Seminary,

STEVEN M. ORTIZ (Southwestern

JOHN F. EVANS (Nairobi Evangelical

CRISTIAN RATA (Torch Trinity

JOHN HOBBINS (University of

MATHIEU RICHELLE (Facult Libre de

JAMES K. HOFFMEIER (Trinity

DAVID T. TSUMURA (Japan Bible

JERRY HWANG (Singapore Bible

BARRY G. WEBB (Emeritus, Moore

[JESOT 3.1 (2014): 327]

The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings:

KEYWORDS: 12 Kings, Davidic promise, Mosaic covenant,

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

by Martin Noth in 1957 in the context of his larger proposal for a

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

The reason that a definitive answer has proved so elusive is

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

with Old Testament theology a conception of a series of covenants that

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

Yahwehs action in history.12 The word spoken to David is mentioned or

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

Third and perhaps most decisively, is the evidence of the

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

In his wisdom (1 Kgs 10:2324) he trades military hardware to the

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

WILL THE DAVIDIC PROMISE BE FULFILLED

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

understood to be indicative of the Deuteronomists purpose.34 Similarly,

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

Hazael will serve Yahwehs purpose. He will be a thorn in the side of

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

Jehoiachin becomes an example of something new. He is a Davidic heir

LOVELL: The Shape of Hope in the Book of Kings

David is truly to always ( )have a lamp before me (1 Kgs

Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 3.1

indicates that these blessings should be a function of the temple (1 Kgs

Sought at the Temple

Salvation after military defeat

Prayers of foreigners heard